AI
TLDR: NEW YORK—Graduates booed AI at multiple commencements, and Microsoft President Brad Smith answered with a 3,000-word essay urging acceptance of AI.
Key Takeaways:
- Graduating classes across the country turned AI talk into boos, including speakers, college presidents, and even Princeton jacket designs tied to AI.
- Brad Smith, after hearing the backlash, published a 3,000-word essay using the 1838 camera debate to claim people control AI use.
- Smith offers reassurance without slowing AI, reframing student anger as consumer taste and implying workers must adapt to automation.
- Princeton graduates booed after an AI system skipped names and rejected AI suspected jacket designs, underscoring fears of errors and gatekeeping.
- Smith positions AI as efficiency that still needs human agency, but his tone mirrors job market pragmatism rather than policy change.
The boos read like a demand for safeguards, but Smith tries to translate them into a motivational poster. The tech sector hears timing for comfort, then moves on anyway.
The boos read like a demand for safeguards, but Smith tries to translate them into a motivational poster. The tech sector hears timing for comfort, then moves on anyway.
Q&A
What would it take for executives like Brad Smith to treat the boos as a negotiation rather than a teachable moment?
Clear commitments with deadlines, like audit requirements for name checking systems, transparency rules for design tooling, and published recourse when AI fails.
Why does the camera analogy land awkwardly with graduates focused on immediate career outcomes?
Camera disruption played out over decades, while graduates face instant competition, credential pressure, and hiring freezes tied to rapid AI adoption.
If students want AI kept in its place, who decides what that place is?
Right now it defaults to employers and vendors, but graduations are pushing the conversation toward regulators, schools, and unions with enforceable standards.
How do name skipping and rejected jacket designs change the emotional stakes beyond job fears?
They turn AI from an abstract future into a lived mistake, making people ask who gets hurt when systems misidentify or stereotype.
Could the next wave of backlash shift from events to legal and procurement pressure?
Yes. When technology touches identities and access, buyers can demand documented performance, bias testing, and human override before contracts renew.
Top in AI
Munich court pressure hits Google over AI Overviews
Sapient cuts foundation model training cost with HRM-Text
Fresh off bond sale, Amazon borrows $17.5B from banks
xAI fired Devin Kim after Grok safety alarms, lawsuit claims
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!