This article originally appeared in The Detroit News May 20, 2025. 

A few months ago, I was on YouTube and saw a band I hadn’t heard of. The band offered a new album for free — a full hour of 1970s heavy blues rock, Jimi Hendrix meets Pearl Jam. I listened to the entire album and every single note hit me at the core. I loved it.

And then I wondered: “Who are these guys? Why haven’t I heard of them?”

I searched for a band website, media interviews or band members profiles. And then I discovered: The album had been created with artificial intelligence. It wasn’t just that the YouTube algorithm fed me music based on my listening history. No, this music had been custom-composed for listeners like me.

I’ve shared this story a number of times. People react to the story in very different ways, ranging from delight to horror. A colleague told me he was “depressed and fearful” for days after hearing it.

“The people who are trying to tell me the good things about artificial intelligence scare me far more than the people who are trying to convince me that artificial intelligence will annihilate me,” he said.

Some of this is nostalgia and fandom at play. We love artists because their stories are compelling and their flaws are relatable. Beatles fans will forever debate their favorite: John, Paul, George or Ringo? The Rolling Stone 100 Greatest Guitarists list is interesting because it includes Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Chuck Berry and Buddy Guy. It won’t have the same pizzazz if every entry were an AI app or plug-in.

Beyond fandom, AI provokes deep concerns about the future of humanity. In one of his first major speeches, Pope Leo XIV addressed developments in artificial intelligence that “pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labor.” Critics identify a range of fears about AI, from malevolent, sentient computers like Skynet in “The Terminator,” to job disruption and unemployment, widespread fraud and scams, and the loss of independent thought.

Fear is often a motivation for public policy decisions, and it’s easy to imagine fear driving AI regulation. Neil Chilson and Taylor Barkley are scholars at the Abundance Institute, a group that advocates for policies that allow emerging technologies to develop and reach their potential.

In a paper published in March, Chilsom and Barkley offer policymakers five questions for evaluating AI policy.

One: Has AI been sufficiently defined? There’s disagreement on what constitutes AI and how the label should apply to large language models like ChatGPT, generative apps that create original images, or machine learning.

Two: Is this really about AI? Some AI regulations are a new attempt to deal with familiar problems like intellectual property or privacy.

Three: Has the proposed legislation adequately identified specific harms? Legislation should address specific harms, not vague concerns.

Four: Have current legal and regulatory powers failed to address these specific harms? New regulation should consider whether existing regulations or agencies are already equipped to address policy concerns.

Five: Will this legislation support an open and dynamic industry? Regulation can impose compliance burdens that stifle innovation and experimentation.

What should Michigan do? Policymakers are grappling with the questions of AI. In 2024, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission called for “guiding principles” on the use of AI. The Michigan Legislature passed bills regulating the use of AI in political advertising and elections. Lawmakers hope to attract data centers to Michigan.

Michigan’s approach to AI can be based on fear or optimism. Optimism is most likely to maximize the benefits of this new revolution.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.