Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, encountered a visceral reception from a crowd of graduates when he urged them to embrace the “rocket ship” of artificial intelligence. The incident, captured in circulating video, highlights a deepening divide between the architects of the AI revolution and the generation now tasked with navigating its economic and professional aftermath.
During the address, Schmidt attempted to acknowledge the anxieties of the modern graduate, noting that many feel the future has already been written and that jobs are evaporating. However, his pivot from empathy to corporate optimism failed to land. The tension peaked when Schmidt suggested that students should not question their place in the AI-driven future, but simply accept the opportunity.
The reaction—a wave of boos and audible disapproval—suggests that the traditional Silicon Valley narrative of inevitable progress is losing its grip on a demographic that views these technological shifts not as opportunities, but as existential threats to their livelihoods. This event was not an isolated occurrence; it follows a similar pattern seen recently with other pro-AI speakers at university commencements, including real estate executive Gloria Caulfield, whose praise for the technology triggered a nearly identical response from students.
The ‘Rocket Ship’ Metaphor and the Entry-Level Crisis
For those of us who have transitioned from writing code to reporting on it, the friction in Schmidt’s speech is palpable. The core of the disconnect lies in the metaphor of the “rocket ship.” In the high-growth era of the early 2000s, getting on the rocket ship meant equity, rapid promotion, and the chance to define a new industry. In 2024, however, the rocket ship looks different to a recent graduate.
Schmidt told the crowd, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat. You just get on.”
To a student entering a job market where entry-level roles in coding, copywriting, and analysis are being aggressively automated, the “seat” Schmidt refers to feels less like a luxury and more like steerage. The ability to “assemble a team of AI agents” is a productivity gain for the employer, but for the employee, it often translates to “deskilling”—the process where the foundational tasks that once allowed junior employees to learn their craft are outsourced to a model, leaving them with no clear path to seniority.
Schmidt also remarked that even those who do not care about science should pay attention because AI “is gonna touch everything else as well.” While factually accurate, the delivery was perceived by many as dismissive of the systemic disruptions the technology causes in non-technical fields, from law to the arts.
Commencement Speeches as a Populist Barometer
While the booing of controversial figures is common in academic settings, there is a specific historical utility in tracking spontaneous reactions to commencement speakers. These moments often serve as a crude but effective barometer for populist trends that eventually migrate into the broader political landscape.
When a speaker’s message is met with an unplanned outcry, it often signals that a specific narrative has reached a breaking point with the public. For example, in December 2001, newspaper publisher Janis Besler Heaphy spoke to graduates at California State University, Sacramento. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, she questioned the degree to which the U.S. Should compromise civil liberties for security. At the time, her warnings were met with hostility and boos, reflecting a national mood of jingoism that would define the early years of the War on Terror.
Similarly, in May 2016, Univision anchor Maria Elena Salinas faced jeering during her speech at California State University, Fullerton when she defended the media against the rising tide of disapproval surrounding the then-presidential campaign of Donald Trump. The reaction in that Orange County crowd mirrored the polarization that would soon dominate the American electorate.
| Speaker | Context/Year | Core Theme | Audience Reaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Janis Besler Heaphy | CSU Sacramento (2001) | Civil Liberties vs. Security | Hostile/Booed off stage |
| Maria Elena Salinas | CSU Fullerton (2016) | Media Integrity/Politics | Jeering/Hostile |
| Gloria Caulfield | Commencement (2024) | AI Optimism | Audible Disapproval |
| Eric Schmidt | UC Berkeley (2024) | AI Inevitability | Widespread Booing |
The Pushback Against ‘Extractive’ AI
The hostility toward Schmidt is not merely a reaction to a perceived lack of humility; it is a reaction to the business model of generative AI. There is a growing movement among labor advocates and academics to reject AI when it is deployed in “extractive” circumstances—where the technology is used primarily to degrade wages or increase surveillance rather than to augment human capability.
Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine, has argued for a program of rejecting generative AI in contexts that lead to labor deskilling and wage degradation. The sentiment among the students at UC Berkeley seems to align with this view. The fear is that Silicon Valley is attempting to “colonize” spheres of public and professional life to maximize profit, while the actual workers are left to compete against “spambots” and automated agents for a dwindling number of stable roles.
For the tech industry, the lesson is clear: the “inevitability” narrative is no longer a persuasive tool. When the people being told to “get on the rocket ship” are the ones most likely to be displaced by the engine, the metaphor ceases to be inspiring and begins to sound like a threat.
The broader implications of this sentiment will likely manifest in the coming months as governments move toward more concrete enforcement of AI regulations. A key checkpoint will be the continued rollout of the European Union AI Act, which seeks to categorize AI risks and protect fundamental rights, potentially providing a legal framework for the extremely protections these students are demanding.
We want to hear from you. Do you believe the “rocket ship” metaphor still holds value for new graduates, or has the narrative shifted too far toward displacement? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
