Kentucky
South
State Power #32/51Per-capita #46
State Power
31.7
of 100 · #32
SPI
31.7
SCC
16.6
SDI
16.6
Pillar profile
Talent13.7
Capital14.1
Research17.8
Infrastructure20.7
Agentic16.6
Nearest peers (per-capita)
- Louisiana17.2
- Oklahoma17.4
- Alaska14.9
- Wyoming14.5
- South Dakota20.1
Report · generated from Kentucky's indicators
Kentucky — standing in full
Kentucky is the #28 state by economic size ($260bn GSP) and ranks #32/51 on absolute State Power and #46/51 on per-capita intensity. No pillar stands out as a clear strength; the binding concern is talent.
Economic & scale context
GDP
$260bn
#28 of 51
GDP / capita
$58k
Population
4.5M
AI investment
$0.9bn
#39 of 51
Notable AI orgs
8
Index & pillar read
| Index / pillar | Value | Standing | What a high vs low value means — and where Kentucky sits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPI State Power | 31.7 | Moderate · #32/51 | Mid-pack. High would mean a heavyweight that anchors national AI capacity and pulls in capital and talent; low would mean limited absolute weight — a smaller node leaning on capacity built in larger states. ▲ high: a heavyweight that anchors national AI capacity and pulls in capital and talent · ▼ low: limited absolute weight — a smaller node leaning on capacity built in larger states |
| SCC State Coefficient | 16.6 | Lagging · #46/51 | Low here — thin intensity per resident — capability is sparse relative to population. ▲ high: deep capability per resident — a concentrated, high-intensity AI economy · ▼ low: thin intensity per resident — capability is sparse relative to population |
| SDI State Agentic | 16.6 | Lagging · #45/51 | Low here — agentic deployment is shallow — the local agent lever is under-used. ▲ high: agents are widely deployed locally — a near-term productivity multiplier · ▼ low: agentic deployment is shallow — the local agent lever is under-used |
| Talent Talent | 13.7 | Lagging · #47/51 | Low here — a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally. ▲ high: a deep talent pool — the scarcest input to building AI · ▼ low: a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally |
| Capital Capital | 14.1 | Developing · #43/51 | Low here — thin investment — good ideas struggle to scale locally. ▲ high: abundant capital flowing into building cognitive infrastructure · ▼ low: thin investment — good ideas struggle to scale locally |
| Research Research | 17.8 | Lagging · #46/51 | Low here — a weak research base — fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts. ▲ high: a strong research base feeding a pipeline of ideas and people · ▼ low: a weak research base — fewer home-grown breakthroughs and spinouts |
| Infrastructure Infrastructure | 20.7 | Lagging · #46/51 | Low here — infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally. ▲ high: the physical and digital rails to run AI at scale are in place · ▼ low: infrastructure gaps cap how much AI can actually be run locally |
| Agentic Agentic | 16.6 | Lagging · #45/51 | Low here — little agentic deployment — the near-term lever is unused. ▲ high: agents are actively deployed — an early-mover productivity edge · ▼ low: little agentic deployment — the near-term lever is unused |
Strengths to build on
- No pillar stands out as a clear strength yet.
Risk factors
- Binding weakness — Talent 13.7 (#47/51, Lagging): a shallow talent base that constrains how much can be built locally.
▲
State values are curated v1 estimates on a consistent scale — not yet measured sub-national data.