If artificial intelligence systems failed and disrupted everyday services, which states would be best equipped to keep functioning? A new ranking puts Vermont first and Nevada last, giving greater weight to natural resources, practical skills and community networks than technological prominence alone.
Wolfstone Digital's analysis scored all 50 states on their readiness for a hypothetical crisis involving AI or broader digital disruption. Vermont led with an overall score of 54.55, followed by Maine at 51.65 and Iowa at 48.49. Nevada finished with 27.81.
The ranking comes from a digital marketing agency specializing in search engine optimization and visibility in AI-generated answers. It represents the company's assessment of preparedness, rather than an official emergency management evaluation.
Its framework combines five categories: AI access and digital exposure, human response and survival skills, medical and emergency response, natural resources, and safety conditions.
The premise is that a state's ability to withstand disruption depends partly on what remains available when digital services become unreliable: food, water, medical care, practical expertise and people able to organize a response.
"AI is not just another tool. If we get this wrong, the downside isn't a bad quarter, it's civilizational," Adam Woodhead of Wolfstone Digital said in the material accompanying the ranking. "Preparing for that possibility should sit alongside pandemics and nuclear risk as a serious public priority."
Montana placed fourth with 48.02, followed by West Virginia at 47.81. Nebraska scored 47.64, Wyoming 47.62 and Mississippi 47.21. New Hampshire and Wisconsin completed the top 10 with 46.99 and 45.58, respectively.
According to the company's explanation, Vermont and Maine benefited from characteristics including low population density, access to forests and water, and local community networks. The analysis treats those resources as potential advantages when transportation, communications or supply chains are disrupted.
Iowa's placement reflected the framework's emphasis on agricultural resources and practical skills. Montana benefited from its open space and natural resources, while the company highlighted trades, volunteer networks and community institutions in explaining West Virginia's position.
Those explanations describe the assumptions behind the ranking. They do not establish that any state could remain self-sufficient through an extended outage or that rural communities would necessarily recover faster than cities.
At the bottom, South Carolina ranked 46th with 32.52, followed by Illinois with 32.48 and Texas with 32.25. New Jersey placed 49th at 30.76, ahead of Nevada.
The company attributed Nevada's position to weaknesses in its assessment of natural resources, human response and safety conditions. Its explanations for New Jersey, Texas and Illinois emphasized population concentration and dependence on interconnected services.
The framework also recognizes a tension in technological development: connectivity and digital infrastructure can support emergency response while creating dependencies when systems fail.
Its medical category considers care capacity and how quickly assistance can arrive. Natural resources encompass food, water, energy, climate and disaster exposure, while safety conditions include crime, crowding and shelter capacity.
However, the supplied summary does not identify the underlying datasets, their dates, the weighting assigned to individual indicators or a defined disruption scenario. Without those details, the scores cannot be independently reproduced, and the reasons for differences between states remain difficult to evaluate.
The ranking offers one view of what preparedness might require, but it does not predict where an AI-related crisis would occur, how likely one is or which state would prove safest in an actual emergency.
