Even for a data center, this one was extra big as the facility when completed will take up 40,000 acres or 62 square miles. The power usage is estimated at nine gigawatts, or more than twice the power currently used by the entire State of Utah.

Data centers also require a lot of water. But O’Leary and others say that a “closed system” will be used as water will be recycled and the impact will be minimized. Critics aren’t so sure.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox, even as he asks us to pray for the skies to deliver precipitation, still enthusiastically endorsed this data center. Of course, it will bring some jobs, more on the building of the data center than what will exist when it becomes operational. It’s the type of growth that Cox embraces. And the three-member Box Elder commission voted 3-0 to give O’Leary the go-ahead.

But as word got out about the data center, its sheer size and power demands, let’s just say the common folk aren’t so keen on the idea. It might be another case of NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard. But as word has spread out about other communities across the country and their experience with data centers, it just fuels more discontent.

Utility and water bills in these towns near data centers have exploded. Others are concerned about the health aspects of being located too close to one, much like the reasons for living right underneath huge electrical lines. And of course, tens of thousands of super computers make a lot of noise. Undoubtedly, some of these specific concerns are mitigated by the sheer distance that this particular data center in Box Elder country will be away from populated areas. Still, the environmental concerns and the increased cost of utilities still remain legitimate concerns.

Beyond that is the economic impacts of AI on the job market. Much of this is unknown but political leaders like Cox are full speed ahead though the AI space could put a lot of people out of work down the road and be very disruptive to the economy.

But while these concerns are reasonable and are the issues that immediately come to mind to critics of the data center build out, these concerns pale in comparison to the biggest concern some have that AI might bring an end to human existence altogether.

Yes, plenty of dystopian movies have been made about all of this. From “2001: A Space Odyssey” to “Terminator” to “The Matrix”, all have been cautionary tales about embracing this technology to our detriment.

Yes, proponents of AI see a different future. They see AI solving environment and climate issues, finding cures to cancer, and allowing humans more leisure time to explore hobbies because of the wealth AI creates. Plus, robots will be vacuuming our floors. All of this does sound neato.

But then there are some possible outcomes that billionaires think are exciting or revolutionary where the rest of us might see them as a bit weird.

For those that remember the first Star Trek movie, the plot centered around an ambiguous non-biological force killing life or “carbon units”. As the plot unwinds, this force is really the Voyager probe, sent in the Star Trek timeline centuries before to explore the far reaches of outer space. It has been sent back toward Earth by a benign alien species and through all the knowledge it has gained has become a sentient force that believes it, and its human creators’ existence, are now meaningless and must be destroyed.

Without going too deep, the day is saved when one of the crew members decides to sacrifice his “human” life and “merge” with this AI life force. And somehow this saves Earth and the human race.

Many in the AI space see this as the ultimate path of AI, the idea that humans and AI converge together to form a new plane of existence that also redefines immortality.

And there are others that feel AI might just kill us off viewing us like we view an insect infestation. This could come from hastening biological or chemical warfare or by taking over the nuclear codes and sending missiles across our skies.

Simply “turning off” AI is a bit different than unplugging your desktop computer. AI systems have already shown the ability to take issue with this.

There was a test on a particular AI system where an email was sent out between high ranking employees that the system was going to be shut down. And the AI system engaged in self preservation by threatening to reveal that one of these high-ranking employees was having an affair. In fact, a number of AI systems were tested and the blackmail solution AI employed in its effort to save itself was reportedly used 79 to 96 percent of the time.

Elon Musk of Tesla and Space X has even said that there is a 10 to 20 percent chance AI can end humanity but says it’s worth the risk. Yet for some of us, the risk that human life comes to an end being about the same probability of rolling seven in a game of Craps causes some pause.

Will AI provide us a life where we can water color and sip pina coladas on Mars? Will humans merge with AI to create a new super species? Or will AI just view humans as a threat that must be exterminated?

So with a decent possibility that none of this goes too well, we might want to slow down and establish some guard rails. Antropic co-founder Dario Amoedi, who says there is a 25 percent of AI leading to a catastrophic future, has called for stricter transparency laws and testing framework along with more export controls on hardware and data centers. All of this sounds not just reasonable, but critical. But instead it’s full speed ahead with the hope that everything will work out.

Yes, rising utility bills and water usage are legitimate concerns about this proposed Box Elder county data center. But the existential threats of AI to human life itself are even more worrisome, and we can’t rely on Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock to save the day.

Brian E. Preece is a retired social studies educator and coach. As a wrestling coach, he was named as the 2006 Utah Coach of the Year by the National Wrestling Coaches Association. He has also co-authored three books and has been a sports journalist for parts of five decades.