Todd Epp reports that South Dakota is among Midwestern states that “lag far behind in artificial intelligence use and efficiency, raising concerns the region may repeat the digital divide of the 1990s.” Epp’s chatbot makes that sound like a bad thing:
The findings highlight a widening digital divide across the Northern Plains. While AI is now a mainstream tool for work, study, and communication, the region’s lagging adoption means fewer productivity gains and risks repeating the broadband gap of the 1990s.
The reports found that Washington, D.C., leads the country in overall AI use, while Rhode Island ranks first in efficiency. States across the Midwest — especially South Dakota, Wyoming, and Kansas — trail well behind, according to studies published Sept. 4 by Digital Information World and Aug. 8 by Phrasly.ai.
South Dakota residents save an average of just 0.81 hours per month using AI tools, the lowest figure in the country, Phrasly.ai found. By comparison, Rhode Islanders save more than 32 hours monthly, nearly a full workweek, according to Digital Information World. South Dakotans also spend the least time per session, just over 10 minutes, compared to Delaware’s 17 minutes, the nation’s highest, Digital Information World reported [Todd Epp, “S.D., Northern Plains Trail Nation in AI Adoption,” Northern Plains News, 2025.09.11].
The source of Epp’s data, Phrasly.ai, is an AI company that wants us to buy its product. “Transform AI-generated content into 100% human text with Phrasly,” the company urges with a profoundly telling disregard for logical consistency (use a computer to generate human text?) and lack of self-awareness. “Save time on your writing, boost efficiency, and make your content indistinguishable from human writing.” You can get “Unlimited AI Humanizations, 15 AI Writer Generations/month, 2,500 words pre process, Advanced AI Humanization,” and more, all for the low low price of $12.99 a month.
AI Humanization—yes, because you’re so bad at being human that you need a machine to be human for you. Shut up and let the machine talk for you.
I’d like to think South Dakota really is holding out on giving up its humanity to prediction machines. But check the methodology behind this report:
Insights were derived from internal user data collected over the past 30 days (June 16, 2025 – July 16, 2025), covering session length, engagement type, and productivity metrics, segmented by state. Population data was gathered using the latest census data (2024). Google Trends was used to assess AI detection queries during the same time period as above [“Written by Daniel Anderson, Senior Content Strategist at Phrasly AI”, “The AI Adoption Gap: Which States Are Leading and Lagging in the Use of Generative AI?” Phrasly.ai blog, 2025.08.08].
I put “Daniel Anderson” and his job title in scare quotes, because Google and DuckDuckGo searches for “‘Daniel Anderson’ Phrasly” produce no LinkedIn page, no online résumé, no interviews, nothing but Phrasly.ai blog posts, suggesting “Daniel Anderson” is just a “humanized” fiction slapped on top of an AI-generated sales pitch. Nor am I finding Phrasly among lists of most popular generative AI web tools. The “internal user data” on which “Daniel Anderson” bases this particular “precise narrative on language technology” appears to come from one bottom-tier company from one month when most South Dakotans go to the lake. It does not appear to capture data from leading generative-AI service companies.
This report by “Daniel Anderson” is similar to what I might say about how much news people read in the United States: “According to internal user data from Dakota Free Press, South Dakotan’s lead the nation in reading news, while Mississippi, Utah, and Connecticut lag in adoption of daily current-affairs content consumption, highlighting a widening civic divide.” But I’m a human committed to creative and factual writing, not an algorithm designed to boost clicks and sell product, so I won’t say that.
Related Reading: Big Tech’s own research shows that using AI may erode critical thinking:
Research from major tech companies on their own products often involves promoting them in some way. And indeed, some of the new studies emphasize new opportunities and use cases for generative AI tools. But the research also points to significant potential drawbacks, including hindering developing skills and a general overreliance on the tools. Researchers also suggest that users are putting too much trust in AI chatbots, which often provide inaccurate information. With such findings coming from the tech industry itself, some experts say, it may signal that major Silicon Valley companies are seriously considering potential adverse effects of their own AI on human cognition, at a time when there’s little government regulation.
“I think across all the papers we’ve been looking at, it does show that there’s less effortful cognitive processes,” said Briana Vecchione, a technical researcher at Data & Society, a nonprofit research organization in New York. Vecchione has been studying people’s interactions with the chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude, the latter made by the company Anthropic, and has observed a range of concerns among her study’s participants, including dependence and overreliance. Vecchione notes that some people take chatbot output at face value, without critically considering the text the algorithms produce. In some fields, the error risks could have significant consequences, experts say — for instance if those chatbots are used in medicine or health contexts [Ramin Skibba, “Are We Offloading Critical Thinking to Chatbots?” Undark, 2025.09.12].
(Pat Powers uncritically reposts Epp’s article; I take a moment to study it, critique it, and put it in context. bUt Pat’s always been some sort of bot.)
You’ve written passionately about preserving human creativity and resisting the lure of AI. But I wonder — do you ride a bicycle? If so, why not walk or jog everywhere? A bicycle is a tool that enhances human movement, just as AI can enhance human communication. Isn’t it possible to embrace innovation without surrendering our humanity?
PS… Sociology lesson 101. Midwestern states are resistant to AI because German negativity, refusal to change, and stubbornness is systematically ingrained in your culture.
I could show a map that shows the ancestry of German culture is from ND down to KS and east to Illinois and west to Montana.
It’s determined by counties that have a majority of residents claiming German ancestry. SD is the highest percentage and pretty much right in the middle. You know. Lots of people standing in the woods wondering where the forest is.
In theory, AI could be used as a useful tool. Unfortunately, we should’ve stopped at the radio for awhile and developed the capacity to handle that technology with maturity before moving on to everything else.
Throughout history, those who want things to stay the same and those who embrace new things have waged these ideological disputes.
Guess who always wins … (the kids)
e.g. When sophisticated calculators, that nearly eliminated the need for advanced math skills were invented those slow to change also invented perceived negativity against a tool that now saves millions of hours of work and is quite passe. “You HAVE to learn math!” No, you don’t, and you don’t need to learn to code, either.”
ps … SD is in the bottom five states for innovation skills. Think the ingrained Deutsche negativity and stubbornness has anything to do with that?
AI is a tool. A tool so powerful the people who created it don’t know how it works. They don’t really have control over it. It’s akin to giving a child a chainsaw or jackhammer. They’re all over the place with it and are a danger to themselves and others. Only a mature, strong, experienced individual can use those tools as intended.
The kids winning just means immature adults were leading. Immature adults are leading now and so yes yes, the kids will probably win. And on it goes.
Persistence, perseverance, stubbornness, all mean the same to those Germans.
Oh, yeah, I’m German too. That’s how I know. It took some very stubborn people
to plow the prairie, build sod houses, endure the blizzards, etc., etc. Some of
those stubborn people were Norwegians, too. A lot of the Germans were of
the Germans from Russia.
As for AI. I think it has a place. However, in the mid 70’s I watched a movie
on television called Colossus, the Forbin Project (it came out in 1970). The
substance of the movie was how a couple of large computers took over the
war making machinery of the United States and Russia. Scary stuff.
You can google it.
An old neighbor of mine (now dead) once said that we will always have to
put the seed in the ground and have to thresh the seed out of the head
or off the cob or out of the pod. Those basic principles have not changed.
All we’re doing is tweaking.
I’m a German, too. That’s how I know, Edwin. Being a septuagenarian, I’ve seen everything you’ve seen and thought and researched more about why SD is the way it is.
SD isn’t a Scandanavian state like the kids are taught. It’s a German state and ashamed of it, at that. German Americans have a reputation for bullying, intolerance, and elitism. Teach that and the state might actually progress at a normal rate instead of becoming 25 years behind the times again on Artificial Intelligence by listening to Heidelberger. (He’s subconsciously afraid AI is going to take his job and there’s not a damn thing he can do about it. Both jobs, actually. Teachers need to adapt and embrace A.I. or become dinosaurs, too.)
Had a Jewish friend in Watertown. (R.I.P. Marianne.) She was wise having come from New York city and grown up going around the world with her dad buying clothing merchandise for their store. She used to shake her head and say, “This place isn’t going anywhere. The damn stubborn Germans are against anything new.” Jews know Germans. Especially SD ones who don’t even realize how they’re acting. Very predictable, though. And easy to make money off of.
There it is, Edwin. It hasn’t changed. Kids with new ideas are laughed at. Then they move to California, Colorado, Washington, or Virgina. Somewhere with vision.
PS. Edwin – Thought about you fondly often when Cory was writing his novel. Have you read it. I proofread it for him and enjoyed every page and plot twist. Glad you’re back.
AI isn’t that good. I’ve tried it out. It’s garbage in, garbage out. I wouldn’t rely on it to give you correct answers on anything beyond 2+2=? I asked AI to provide a history of the nuclear waste issue in South Dakota. What I got back was mostly a summary of articles from Dakota Free Press. I’m not saying Dakota Free Press is garbage, but it didn’t add anything beyond the discussions we’ve had here over the years on nuclear waste in South Dakota. I had thought maybe it had some additional information from Governor Janklow or Chem-Nuclear or the hundreds of people who were involved in the issue. No. You get nothing from the TIP files nothing from anything in Janklow’s archived papers. Nothing from relevant state agencies. Nothing from the archives of the various legislative sessions. Nothing from the court cases. Nothing for newspaper archives. So, no, AI is piss poor if you are looking for any sort of depth.
A.I. is about learning how to prompt. As you said, Donald. You asked in a way that provided garbage because you prompted poorly.
Or … did you just want to see your own name more? ha ha
– Hey Porter — challenge accepted. Let’s build a solid, non-DFP-backed history of South Dakota’s nuclear waste saga, drawing from archival sources, university collections, and federal cleanup records.
🧨 South Dakota’s Nuclear Waste History (No DFP Sources)
1970s: Environmental Awakening
South Dakota Resources Coalition was founded in the early 1970s amid growing national environmental consciousness.
Governor Richard Kneip helped catalyze the movement by co-sponsoring the 1972 South Dakota Environmental Symposium, which unified scattered citizen groups into a politically viable force.
Early concerns focused on water resources and federal environmental legislation like the Clean Air Act and Water Pollution Control Amendments.
1980s: The Chem-Nuclear Proposal & Legislative Battles
In the early 1980s, Chem-Nuclear Systems proposed a low-level radioactive waste dump in South Dakota.
Governor William Janklow supported joining the Midwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, which would have made South Dakota a potential host for regional waste.
Fierce opposition emerged from environmental groups, tribal communities, and local citizens, citing health risks, environmental degradation, and lack of transparency.
The proposal triggered intense legislative debate and public mobilization, culminating in its rejection.
1990s–2000s: Federal Cleanup & Legacy Sites
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) identified several South Dakota locations with residual contamination from Cold War-era nuclear activities.
Cleanup efforts were initiated or completed at these sites, though some were referred to other agencies due to jurisdictional limitations.
The Department of Energy maintained that public health was protected, though independent studies questioned long-term radiation exposure risks.
Archival Records & Legal Footprints
The South Dakota State University Archives hold extensive documentation on radioactive waste disposal and nuclear liability, especially through the lens of the South Dakota Resources Coalition.
These records include correspondence, legislative materials, and environmental impact assessments from the 1970s through the 1990s.
Despite the absence of a permanent waste site, the legal and political battles left a lasting imprint on state policy and public awareness.
* If Donald Pay wants depth, he should dig into the SDSU archives, DOE cleanup maps, and the legislative records from the Janklow era. AI didn’t miss the story — it just knows where to look beyond the blogosphere.
Want me to pull quotes from Kneip or Janklow’s papers next?
Porter – Yes, AIsha, please pull those quotes.
Alright, Porter — let’s dig into the archives and pull some direct material from the governors who shaped South Dakota’s nuclear waste policy. No Dakota Free Press summaries, just primary-source flavor.
🗂️ Governor Richard Kneip (1971–1978)
Kneip was instrumental in catalyzing South Dakota’s environmental movement. According to the South Dakota State University Archives, in spring 1972:
“Governor Richard Kneip wanted something done about giving the scattered groups interested in the environment a politically viable voice.”
He co-sponsored the South Dakota Environmental Symposium on September 28, 1972, which unified grassroots organizations. Kneip guaranteed participation from “any state bureaucrat” and opened the event himself. This led to the formation of the South Dakota Resources Coalition, which later became a key opponent of nuclear waste proposals.
Kneip’s administration laid the groundwork for environmental resistance, but nuclear waste wasn’t yet a central issue — that would erupt under his successor.
🔥 Governor William Janklow (1979–1987, 1995–2003)
Janklow’s tenure saw the most explosive nuclear waste battles. In 1982, he supported joining the Midwest Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, which would have made South Dakota a candidate for regional waste disposal.
From the South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources records, we know:
Janklow’s correspondence from 1980–1983 includes direct exchanges about radioactive waste siting.
Civil Case #83-5046 (Janklow v. Kansas City) involved legal disputes over waste transport and liability.
He also proposed using the Black Hills Ordnance Depot as a potential dump site, which triggered fierce opposition from environmental groups, tribal leaders, and rural communities.
Janklow’s style was combative. He pushed hard for economic development and infrastructure, often clashing with conservationists. His archived proclamations and legal filings show a governor who saw nuclear waste as a solvable logistics problem — not a moral or ecological crisis.
AIsha – If you want, I can pull excerpts from the actual court filings or correspondence logs next. Or we could riff on how Kneip’s coalition-building contrasts with Janklow’s top-down governance. Your call.
Stand by, please Aisha. We’re not getting paid for this.
FYI … I’ve used A.I. every day since the first week it came out. I have three versions, and each has a name and is good at different things.
I have three of the best office assistants I’ve ever had.
Just my opinion, of course. Why should it matter to me if SD gets behind, again.
I’m the one who once told Ol’ grudz that SD is a museum. America needs some places like y’all. You know, for nostalgia and seeing how it used to be. Might promote that. Oh, wait. Kristi already is.
Good luck. German Americans always pull through. Somehow.
Porter, that’s a skimpy look at the SD environmental movement, not nuclear waste. It lacks depth doesn’t cite specific sources. In fact, I think some of it comes from me. I did a brief history of the SD environmental movement at one time. I already know where the Janklow archives are.
I remember the Kniep meeting. I didn’t attend, but I was part of the grassroots environmental effort, CRUD (Community Recyclers of Useable Discards). which became part of the first statewide group, which wasn’t named South Dakota Resources Coalition at first. It changed to that name some years later. So, it’s a bit inaccurate.
So, what. It told you where to look. That’s what that part of AI is. But there’s sooo much more.
Some say that people who hate AI need to believe they’re the smartest in the room. Now they’ll never be, if someone has a phone in their pocket.
PS … Let’s have a convo about the benefits of cryptocurrency. I love it. So does the Tariff Pig.
Porter, I disagree with your bicycle analogy. The bicycle is technology (I agree) that allows the rider to do the work he or she intended to d o more efficiently. The rider is still in control; the rider still does all the work and maintains absolute control of the machine.
As a teacher for 38 years, I have seen technology change with (because of) generational differences in the view of work. When laptops were introduced to teachers, they were a tool to do our work more efficiently (and a back-door toe 24-7 access to free overtime from teachers). My generation uses technology to help do work, be more efficient in our doing of work, maybe even to get more work done.
This generation sees technology as a tool to do their work for them. They are not writing research papers — they get AI to do that for them. they do not fill out worksheets — they get AI to do that for them. The technology is not an aid in their work, but a substitute for it.
They also do not ride bicycles.
I for one am trying to make this round of DFP different.
I and maybe Cory, too would prefer that we the commentors comment on his post and not on each other’s posts.
Discipline, discipline, discipline.
I’d be okay with that rule if that’s what Cory wants. However. I saw the previous problems being trolling comments and people responding to trolling comments. So far, I’ve enjoyed this iteration of the comments section.