Key Takeaways
- A University of New Hampshire survey shows 64 % of Granite Staters expect AI to have a negative impact on the country over the next decade.
- Younger respondents (18‑34) are the most pessimistic, while those 65 + are comparatively optimistic about AI’s future effects.
- 45 % of surveyed residents oppose building any AI data centers in New Hampshire, reflecting recent public backlash against a proposed facility in Nottingham.
- Concerns center on resource use—water, land, and noise—as illustrated by Planning Board chair Carl Staley’s remarks about a potential Portsmouth site.
- Only 8 % believe AI will create more jobs in the next ten years, yet 39 % of workers who already use AI report increased productivity.
- Despite skepticism, many New Hampshire employees see value in AI when paired with human oversight, as exemplified by Denise Muro’s approach to integrating the technology responsibly.
Public Sentiment Toward AI’s National Impact
The University of New Hampshire’s latest poll reveals a stark outlook: nearly two‑thirds of Granite Staters (64 %) think artificial intelligence will exert a negative influence on the United States over the next ten years. This figure underscores a growing apprehension that transcends age, though the intensity varies across generations. The study’s authors note that “those in the younger demographic (18 to 34 years old) were particularly pessimistic about AI’s impact,” suggesting that millennials and Gen Z respondents harbor the strongest doubts about the technology’s societal benefits.
Age‑Based Differences in AI Outlook
Contrasting sharply with the younger cohort, residents aged 65 and older expressed a more favorable view of AI’s prospective role. While the survey did not quantify the exact positivity rate for this group, the report highlights that older adults “polled more positive” than their younger counterparts. This divergence may reflect differing life‑stage priorities—older adults might be less concerned about job displacement and more attuned to potential efficiencies in healthcare or daily living, whereas younger adults are acutely aware of AI’s disruptive potential in emerging career fields.
Opposition to AI Data Centers in New Hampshire
When asked whether an AI data center should be constructed within the state, a substantial 45 % of respondents said they oppose any continued plans for such facilities. This opposition aligns with recent events: a proposed data center in Nottingham was withdrawn after a wave of public dissent. The survey’s findings suggest that skepticism extends beyond abstract worries about AI’s societal impact to concrete concerns about the physical infrastructure required to support it.
Local Officials Voice Infrastructure Concerns
Carl Staley, Planning Board chair of Peterborough, echoed these worries when speaking to News 9 about the feasibility of hosting an AI data center in his region. He stated, “The use of water, the use of land, the noise, all those things would be kind of non‑starters,” referring specifically to a hypothetical center in Portsmouth. Staley’s commentary highlights three primary pain points—massive water consumption for cooling, extensive land footprints, and operational noise—that residents and municipal planners view as deal‑breakers for large‑scale AI facilities.
Environmental and Community Trade‑Offs
Staley’s remarks tap into a broader debate about balancing technological advancement with environmental stewardship and quality‑of‑life considerations. Data centers, especially those optimized for AI workloads, demand constant electricity and sophisticated cooling systems, often drawing millions of gallons of water daily. In a state known for its lakes, forests, and rural charm, such resource demands can clash with community values centered on preservation and low‑impact living. The noise generated by constantly running servers and backup generators further exacerbates concerns, particularly in residential neighborhoods.
Job Market Anxiety Versus Productivity Gains
The survey also probed attitudes toward AI’s effect on employment. Only 8 % of participants believe AI will lead to more jobs over the next decade, revealing a deep‑seated fear that automation will outpace job creation. Yet, among the subset of Granite Staters who already interact with AI at work, a different picture emerges: 39 % report that the technology has increased their workplace productivity. This juxtaposition suggests that while many anticipate broad labor‑market disruption, those who have successfully integrated AI into their routines experience tangible efficiency benefits.
Worker Perspectives on Responsible AI Use
Denise Muro, a New Hampshire employee who utilizes AI in her daily tasks, offered a nuanced viewpoint that captures the cautious optimism of many practitioners. She told the press, “I think it’s smart to engage with it," adding, “I try to still make sure ‘these are my thoughts, and I’m putting my own human element into everything I do,’ you know?” Muro’s comment emphasizes a hybrid approach: leveraging AI’s analytical power while retaining human judgment, creativity, and ethical oversight. Her stance reflects a growing sentiment that AI should augment—not replace—human capability.
Implications for Policy and Public Engagement
Taken together, the poll results and anecdotal insights point to a clear mandate for policymakers: any push to expand AI infrastructure must address tangible community concerns about water usage, land consumption, and noise, while also fostering transparent dialogue about workforce impacts. Public opposition, as seen in Nottingham, demonstrates that residents are willing to mobilize when they perceive threats to local resources or quality of life. Simultaneously, the productivity gains reported by current AI users suggest that targeted education and upskilling programs could help alleviate job‑market fears by preparing workers for evolving roles.
Looking Ahead: Navigating AI’s Dual Nature
The University of New Hampshire study encapsulates a paradox facing the Granite State—and indeed, much of the nation: AI promises heightened efficiency and innovation, yet its deployment raises substantial environmental, social, and economic questions. As communities weigh the merits of hosting data centers or integrating AI into local industries, the voices of both skeptics like Carl Staley and pragmatists like Denise Muro will be crucial. Balancing these perspectives will determine whether New Hampshire can harness AI’s advantages without compromising the natural and social fabric that defines the state.
https://www.wmur.com/article/new-unh-study-two-thirds-of-granite-staters-say-ai-will-make-country-worse/71510743