Michigan’s harsh AI bills could drive tech talent to “Right to Compute” states

The Michigan House is considering heavy-handed AI regulation bills that could drive tech development out of the state, while several other states are adopting “Right to Compute” laws that balance innovation with responsible oversight. These alternative approaches protect computational freedom while implementing targeted safety requirements, potentially giving adopting states a significant competitive advantage in attracting AI-intensive industries and talent.

What Michigan is proposing: The state’s House Bills 4667 and 4668 would impose severe restrictions and criminal penalties on AI development and use.

• House Bill 4667 creates new felony offenses with mandatory prison sentences for criminal use, development, or distribution of AI systems.
• House Bill 4668 requires AI developers to publicly disclose safety protocols, conduct regular risk assessments, and comply with third-party audits.
• The bills’ broad AI definition could lead to unintended consequences, such as small business owners facing eight-year minimum prison sentences for minor data management violations involving Excel spreadsheets.

The Right to Compute alternative: Montana became the first state to enact this balanced approach in April 2025, affirming citizens’ rights to own and use computational technology.

• The law requires that any new AI regulations be “demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety.”
• It mandates two key safety requirements: companies must create shutdown mechanisms allowing reversion to human control within reasonable time, and conduct annual risk management reviews including fallback procedures and mitigation plans.
• Idaho, New Hampshire, and Ohio are considering their own versions of Right to Compute laws.

What experts are saying: Technology analysts emphasize that computational freedom should be protected rather than restricted by government.

• “Computing power is not a mere convenience,” technology analyst Taylor Barkley told an Ohio House committee. “It is the foundation of technological progress, economic growth, and civic participation.”
• “Computational freedom is not a privilege to be granted by the government, but a natural extension of rights we already possess that should be protected by the government,” Barkley continued.
• Greg Lawson of The Buckeye Institute, an Ohio-based policy research organization, testified that Ohio’s proposed law establishes “clear regulatory guardrails to properly balance innovation and responsible oversight of emerging technology.”

Why this matters: States adopting Right to Compute laws will gain competitive advantages in the AI economy, particularly in manufacturing, energy, and healthcare sectors that rely heavily on artificial intelligence.

• Universities in restrictive states will be disadvantaged in attracting AI researchers and preparing students for high-tech careers.
• Michigan risks encouraging its businesses and creative talent to relocate to more welcoming jurisdictions if it pursues heavy-handed regulation over balanced oversight.