Montanans Are Already Using AI — Even If Politicians Are Still Finding Their Talking Points

Montanans Are Already Using AI — Even If Politicians Are Still Finding Their Talking Points

by Shawn White Wolf

Montanans Are Already Using AI — Even If Politicians Are Still Finding Their Talking Points

Artificial intelligence is no longer some far-off Silicon Valley experiment. It has already slipped into daily life in Montana, sometimes quietly, sometimes clumsily, and sometimes in ways folks may not even recognize as AI.

That is the funny part. A Montanan may say, “I don’t use AI,” then turn around and use Google’s search summaries, Facebook ad tools, Canva design suggestions, Grammarly, ChatGPT, QuickBooks automation, a phone camera enhancement, or a website builder that writes half the paragraph for them. That is AI, whether we put a cowboy hat on it or not.

In Montana, AI is not mainly about robots replacing ranch hands or computers running city hall. At least not yet. The everyday use is much more ordinary. Small businesses are using it to write social media posts, create ads, draft website text, respond to customers, polish emails, design flyers, and save time. A one-person operation in Helena, Townsend, Butte, Missoula, or Miles City can now do in an afternoon what used to require a designer, a copywriter, and three cups of bad coffee.

That matters in a state like ours. Montana is full of small operations, family businesses, nonprofits, local newspapers, musicians, photographers, farmers, ranchers, churches, volunteer groups, and side hustles. Most do not have a full marketing department sitting in the back room. AI gives the little guy a second set of hands.

Education is another major front. Montana schools and universities are no longer asking whether AI exists. They are asking how to manage it. Students are using it for brainstorming, tutoring, outlines, grammar help, study guides, and sometimes, yes, taking shortcuts they should not be taking. Teachers are using it to help draft lesson plans, rubrics, examples, and classroom materials. Like calculators in math class years ago, AI is forcing schools to decide what learning really means. Is the student thinking, or is the machine doing the thinking? That question will not go away.

Agriculture may be one of the most important and least flashy uses of AI in Montana. Precision agriculture uses data, sensors, drones, satellite imagery, machine learning, and software tools to help farmers and ranchers make better decisions. This can involve crop breeding, soil analysis, weed detection, spraying decisions, water use, and grazing management. That is not science fiction. That is practical Montana work. If AI helps a farmer save fuel, reduce chemical use, improve yields, or better understand land conditions, then it has earned its keep.

Health care is also using AI, though most patients may never notice. Hospitals and health systems are using AI-assisted tools for care coordination, imaging support, and faster response to urgent conditions. In rural states, where distance is a serious barrier, anything that helps speed up diagnosis or coordination deserves a fair look. Still, we should be careful. Health care AI should help doctors and nurses, not replace judgment, compassion, or accountability.

Now, where are Montana’s political candidates on AI?

That is where things get foggy.

So far, most candidates are not speaking clearly about artificial intelligence as a central campaign issue. They talk about jobs, housing, health care, public lands, border security, inflation, federal spending, and trust in government. All of those matter. But AI touches nearly every one of them. It affects jobs. It affects schools. It affects privacy. It affects energy use. It affects water use. It affects national security. It affects small business. Any candidate running in 2026 who does not have an AI position is already behind the curve.

Seth Bodnar appears to be the most openly comfortable with AI, at least from his University of Montana record. Under his leadership, UM leaned into a “human-centered” approach to AI, exploring how to use it in teaching, learning, research, and campus operations. That does not make him a reckless tech booster. It suggests he sees AI as something Montana should understand and shape, not simply fear. His challenge as a candidate is that voters deserve more than academic language. Montanans need to know where he stands on AI data centers, privacy, campaign deepfakes, student use, rural jobs, and federal regulation.

Kurt Alme, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, has not made AI a major public campaign issue from what is visible so far. His campaign message is more centered on law, order, Trump-aligned leadership, crime, and federal accountability. That background could give him a natural opening to speak about AI in relation to fraud, deepfakes, cybercrime, child exploitation, financial scams, and national security. But as of now, voters should ask for specifics.

Alani Bankhead, the Democratic candidate, has also not made AI a defining issue publicly. Her campaign emphasizes service, families, health care, housing, and restoring trust. Those issues also connect directly to AI. AI could affect health care access, housing markets, employment screening, education, and government benefits. If she wants to speak to working Montanans, she should explain how AI can help ordinary people without letting corporations or government agencies run roughshod over them.

At the state level, the clearest AI policy work has come from lawmakers dealing with government use and computing freedom. Rep. Braxton Mitchell sponsored legislation limiting government use of AI systems. That is not being “anti-AI.” That is saying government should not use AI to manipulate, discriminate, surveil, or make unchecked decisions about citizens. Sen. Daniel Zolnikov sponsored Montana’s Right to Compute Act, a more pro-innovation approach meant to protect lawful computing and AI use while setting some guardrails for critical infrastructure.

That contrast is probably where Montana’s real AI debate lives. Not “AI or no AI.” That question is already outdated. The real questions are: Who controls it? Who benefits? Who pays the electric bill? Who owns the data? Who protects privacy? Who is accountable when AI gets it wrong?

Montana should not reject AI. That would be like rejecting electricity because someone might get shocked. But Montana should not worship AI either. We have seen enough outside money, outside promises, and outside experts come into this state with big ideas and little respect for local consequences.

The Montana way should be simple: use the tool, keep your judgment, protect your neighbors, and do not hand over the keys to people who do not have to live with the results.

AI can help Montana. It can help small businesses compete, students learn, farmers plan, doctors respond, and local communities communicate. But it must remain a tool in human hands, not a replacement for human responsibility.

The candidates who understand that will be ready for the future. The ones who dodge the question are telling us something too.