Key Takeaways
- AI was characterized as a “gray rhino problem”: a predictable threat that advances deceptively fast.
- Utah’s Office of AI Policy, launched in 2024, serves as both a policy‑development hub and a regulatory sandbox for AI firms.
- Panelists praised the state’s “humility‑first” approach, which seeks to nurture innovation while surfacing risks.
- Gov. Spencer Cox’s Pro‑Human Initiative (launched Dec. 2, 2025) frames every AI decision around two questions: does it serve humankind and does it promote human flourishing?
- Rep. Doug Fiefia’s AI Companion Chatbot Safety Act (HB438) exemplifies Utah’s human‑centric legislative thinking, though it remains unpassed.
- Liability remains contentious: some advocate product‑like liability for AI developers, while others argue responsibility currently falls on deployers.
- Deputy Attorney General Stewart Young urged strengthening criminal law to hold AI companies accountable, noting the federal government’s limited capacity.
- Summit participants agreed that states must lead on AI regulation, balancing oversight with the need to avoid stifling breakthroughs.
Introduction and the Gray Rhino Metaphor
At the Regulatory Reform Summit hosted by Rep. Celeste Maloy, artificial intelligence was described as a “gray rhino problem” — a predictable threat that moves deceptively fast. Medlir Mema, director of the AI Ethics and Governance Institute, opened his remarks with a vivid analogy: “Imagine the gray rhino… When you think about a rhino generally, it is this big beast that doesn’t look like it runs very fast — until it’s right in front of you.” He added, “It’s moved so quickly in front of our eyes that our moral and ethical bearings, from a societal perspective, have not been able to anticipate the potential risks, upsides, and harms that AI brings.” Rep. Maloy echoed this sentiment, calling AI the “final frontier in regulation” and noting that it remains one of the few areas almost completely unregulated. The summit’s goal was to explore how Utah could anticipate and manage this looming challenge.
Utah’s Office of AI Policy and the Sandbox Model
State officials highlighted Utah’s Office of AI Policy, created in 2024, as a cornerstone of the state’s regulatory strategy. Overseen by Zach Boyd and Utah Department of Commerce Commissioner Margaret Busse, the office has a dual mandate: to develop policy around emerging AI issues and to operate as a regulatory sandbox. Busse explained, “The sandbox allows AI companies developing new technology to request temporary regulatory changes. The office can then work with the relevant regulators… and get some temporary regulatory relief as we allow these companies to pilot their company’s product or service.” She noted that this approach has become “a very fruitful way for us to learn” about real‑world AI impacts while maintaining flexibility for innovators.
Balancing Innovation with Humility
Brandon Amacher, director of UVU’s Emerging Tech Policy Lab, praised the sandbox as evidence of Utah’s “very encouraging level of humility.” He argued that the model “allows for us to not necessarily stifle innovation or the benefits that we can get from them while we find where those problems are and attempt to address them.” This sentiment was shared by Rep. Doug Fiefia, who said, “I think, for one, we’re not anti‑technology, but also we’re not naive about the potential harms… I think Utah has done a few things the right way.” The panel emphasized that regulatory humility does not mean lax oversight; rather, it seeks to create a feedback loop where experimentation informs policy without prematurely shutting down promising technologies.
The Pro‑Human Initiative and Human‑Centric Regulation
Many speakers lauded Gov. Spencer Cox’s Pro‑Human Initiative, launched Dec. 2, 2025, which seeks to evaluate every AI decision through two simple questions: “Does it serve humankind?” and “Does it promote human flourishing?” Panelists argued that this human‑forward mindset is exactly what legislators need when crafting AI policy. Rep. Fiefia articulated the guiding principle: “The one question I ask myself in my role, as it relates to AI, is how does this benefit the human? And I think sometimes that question is left out of the room in making some big decisions.” The initiative aims to embed ethical considerations directly into the regulatory process, ensuring that technological advances align with societal wellbeing.
Chatbot Safety Act as a Human‑Centred Example
Rep. Fiefia’s AI Companion Chatbot Safety Act (HB438) was cited as a concrete illustration of Utah’s human‑centric regulatory thinking. The bill would require developers to disclose that chatbots are not human and would impose additional protections for minors interacting with AI‑driven conversational agents. Although HB438 has not yet become law, its introduction signals the legislature’s willingness to address specific harms—such as deception and child safety—through targeted statutes. Fiefia noted that such measures reflect the broader question of “how does this benefit the human?” by preventing misuse that could erode trust or endanger vulnerable users.
Debating Liability: Product‑Like Responsibility vs. Deployer Duty
Liability emerged as a contentious theme. Bennett Borden, founder and CEO of Clarion AI Partners, argued that AI developers should bear product‑like liability, drawing a parallel to traditional consumer goods. He recounted a personal example: “I have this whole avenue of product liability that I can go through” if a store‑bought product harmed his child, but noted, “You can’t do that with software.” Borden observed that most existing AI regulation places responsibility on the deployer rather than the model’s creator, a mismatch he believes must be corrected. “There has to be a way to get that liability spread more evenly where it’s supposed to be,” he said, suggesting that AI’s novelty warrants a new liability framework akin to that governing pharmaceuticals or automobiles.
Criminal Law as a Complementary Tool
In contrast, Deputy Attorney General Stewart Young advocated strengthening criminal law to hold AI companies accountable, especially when their products cause demonstrable harm. He warned that reliance on civil regulation alone may be insufficient given the financial scale of AI firms: “These companies have trillions of dollars, and my concern is regulation alone is not going to necessarily move the needle… It’s not necessarily going to make sure that it protects our children.” Young, who leads the AG’s criminal unit, urged states to take the lead: “The feds aren’t going to do it, I can guarantee you… Right now, the Department of Justice is struggling. And so the states need to lead out on this criminal arena.” His proposal envisions statutes that could prosecute reckless AI deployment akin to environmental or public‑safety offenses.
Conclusion: Utah as a Potential Model for State‑Level AI Governance
The summit concluded with a shared optimism that Utah’s blended approach—combining a policy office, a regulatory sandbox, a human‑centric initiative, targeted safety legislation, and ongoing debates over liability and criminal accountability—offers a replicable template for other states grappling with the rapid advance of AI. As Medlir Mema’s gray rhino metaphor reminded attendees, the threat is predictable; the challenge lies in preparing society to meet it before it charges. By fostering humility, prioritizing human benefit, and clarifying responsibility, Utah aims to turn the looming gray rhino into a manageable, even beneficial, presence in the technological landscape.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/10/15/artificial-intelligence-harms-your-child-who-is-responsbile/