The boos at commencement speeches this spring were not random outbursts from overly sensitive college students. They were something much more significant. They were a warning sign.

When former Google CEO Eric Schmidt began talking about AI during a commencement speech at the University of Arizona, graduates booed him loudly. A similar reaction happened days earlier at the University of Central Florida when a speaker praised AI as the next industrial revolution. The reaction caught some people in the tech world off guard. It should not have.

Young people are not rejecting AI because they are anti-technology. This generation grew up immersed in technology. They are digital natives who have spent their entire lives online. If anything, they are more technologically fluent than the generations criticizing them.

What they are reacting to is the way AI is being presented and deployed in America right now.

Put yourself in the shoes of a college graduate in 2026. Entry-level hiring has slowed across multiple industries. Companies increasingly expect experience for jobs that used to serve as training grounds for young workers. Entire categories of junior-level work are being compressed or eliminated. At the same time, graduates are hearing a nonstop stream of messaging from CEOs, investors and AI executives explaining how artificial intelligence will automate white-collar work, starting with the most junior positions.

If you are twenty-two years old and trying to start your career, that is not inspiring. It is terrifying.

Then come the layoffs. Almost every week brings another round of headlines connecting workforce reductions to AI initiatives. Sometimes, workers are directly replaced by automation. Often they are not. In many cases, companies are redirecting money saved from layoffs into AI infrastructure, GPU expansion, data center projects or agentic software initiatives.

Workers understand the distinction intellectually, but emotionally, the result is the same. Jobs disappear while AI spending rises. That is the pattern people see.

The technology industry still seems confused about why this creates resentment. Frankly, it should not be.

For decades, Silicon Valley sold innovation as empowerment. The personal computer empowered individuals. The internet democratized information. Open source fostered collaboration. Cloud computing lowered barriers to entry. Smartphones put powerful technology in everyone’s pocket.

AI is increasingly being marketed differently. Too often, the public-facing message sounds less like empowerment and more like labor replacement.

That changes the emotional dynamic completely.

The problem is compounded by the image of the people leading the AI boom. Whether fair or unfair, the public increasingly sees the AI industry as dominated by a class of oligarchic tech billionaires who appear detached from the economic anxieties of ordinary people. They are viewed as extraordinarily wealthy individuals pursuing even more wealth and power while openly discussing workforce disruption as an unavoidable byproduct of progress.

Previous generations of industrialists certainly had their flaws, but many at least attempted to frame their success within a broader social mission. Rockefeller funded public institutions. Carnegie built libraries. Ford tied industrial expansion to middle-class employment. Bill Gates spent the second half of his career building one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the world.

Today’s AI elite often projects something very different. The dominant tone coming out of the industry can feel transactional, hyper-competitive and dismissive of legitimate public concern. There is a growing sense among many Americans that AI is being done to them, not for them.

That perception has only worsened because many high-profile AI leaders have aligned themselves politically with one of the most polarizing administrations in modern American history. Fairly or unfairly, allegations of corruption, favoritism, insider dealing and regulatory capture surrounding the administration spill over onto the AI industry itself. Companies seen as politically connected are increasingly viewed not simply as technology firms but as participants in a broader concentration of economic and political power.

The government has done very little to reassure the public otherwise.

Rather than building thoughtful frameworks around AI governance, labor transition, transparency or consumer protection, Washington often appears more focused on accelerating AI investment than protecting citizens from potential harm. Efforts to block state and local AI regulation while simultaneously failing to establish meaningful federal standards have created the impression that the government is less interested in oversight than in ensuring America wins the AI race at any cost.

That creates a profound trust problem.

The backlash is no longer limited to software or media workers, either. The AI infrastructure boom itself is generating growing resentment in communities across the country. Massive data center projects are being built in areas that often lack the political leverage to push back effectively. Residents are being asked to tolerate higher energy demand, increased water consumption, noise concerns and generous tax incentives for some of the wealthiest corporations in the world.

In return, many communities see relatively few permanent jobs once construction ends.

Again, perception matters. When local residents feel they are absorbing the costs while distant corporations collect the benefits, resentment follows naturally.

The irony is that much of the rest of the world is handling the politics of AI more effectively than the United States. In parts of Europe and Asia, governments are at least attempting to frame AI adoption through the lens of public benefit, workforce transition and industrial policy. Workers in some countries have more formal roles in negotiating how automation is introduced into the workplace. Governments are more visibly involved in balancing innovation against labor stability and consumer protection.

In America, the message often sounds much harsher: Adapt or get left behind.

That may work in venture capital pitch decks. It is a far less effective message for a population already struggling with economic anxiety and institutional distrust.

None of this means AI is doomed. It is not. The technology is too important economically, strategically and geopolitically to disappear. AI will continue reshaping industries, software development, cybersecurity, healthcare, infrastructure and national defense. The competitive pressures driving adoption are simply too large.

But the industry should not dismiss the backlash as irrational fear or anti-technology sentiment. Public skepticism toward AI is rooted in legitimate concerns about labor displacement, concentration of power, political influence and economic insecurity.

The tech industry spent years assuming that technological advancement automatically created public goodwill. That assumption no longer holds. Trust now matters as much as capability.

If the AI industry wants broad societal acceptance, it cannot simply keep telling people that disruption is inevitable and resistance is futile. It has to demonstrate that ordinary workers, communities and citizens will share meaningfully in the benefits being created.

Right now, too many Americans do not believe that they will.

Shimmy’s Take

The commencement boos were not really about AI itself. They were about trust.

Trust in institutions.
Trust in government.
Trust in corporations.Trust in the leaders of the AI industry and our government.
Trust that the future being built will still have room for ordinary people in it.

That is the real issue the AI industry is facing in America right now.

Not a technology problem.

A legitimacy problem.