Graduates let feelings known about who controls the future

There have been numerous news articles and viral videos this graduation season featuring the Class of 2026 raining a chorus of boos upon speakers promoting the wonders of artificial intelligence (AI). The speakers targeted with such responses should have taken some advice from filmmaker Gregory Nava.

During the Linfield University ceremony on Sunday, Nava told graduating seniors what they want to hear at the culmination of years of hard work: You are in charge of your own future, not technology.

“Technology is advancing so quickly that our wisdom cannot keep up with it. Young people feel afraid and isolated,” Nava said. “Will there be a place for me and the children I want to have? Will I be replaced by AI? Well, I am here to say, do not be afraid, because you all have AI. You all have actual intelligence. And actual intelligence is far more powerful than artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is a tool. But artificial intelligence can never lead, and it can never save the world because it does not have a heart. Yes, I am telling you, you have a great responsibility, and you are wondering, ‘can I do this?’”

That message is a stark contrast from what former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said during the University of Arizona proceedings.

“The question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will,” Schmidt said in his speech before hearing jeers from students awaiting their diploma. “The question is whether you will have shaped artificial intelligence.”

The same treatment was delivered to tech company vice president Gloria Caulfield at University of Central Florida, who said, “The rise of artificial intelligence is the next Industrial Revolution.”

Whether they are right or wrong, the speakers did not grasp the angst about AI felt by current graduates worried whether they control their own professional destinies during the rise of AI.

Perhaps there is some solace to be gained from a new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that found remote work, not AI, is actually responsible for the disrupted job market graduates are entering. But Gen Z’s growing hostilities toward the current technological revolution are driven by more than job replacement.

Julia Pilch, a writer for the Seattle University student publication, The Spectator, wrote it is as much about being forced to change who they are as it is about being replaced.

“Students don’t want to adapt to AI because we shouldn’t have to. We shouldn’t have to pick and choose our careers based on what AI can or cannot achieve,” she wrote. “We shouldn’t have to train AI to do our jobs. Why aren’t humans the ones being prioritized?”

Between the lines of these discussions are examples of the importance of liberal arts institutions like Linfield. The more technology can do, the more important it becomes to value and teach critical thinking.

“I already had that perspective,” Linfield graduate Owen Schoner, a finance major, told the News-Register about Nava’s message on hope and AI. “I agree with everything he said. I had classes on AI and philosophy at the same time, and our professors debated each other and brought out some great things,” Schoner said.

And in case you side with the speakers recently booed for their presentations on the matter; well, just ask AI:

“Leaders in education, business, and policy must stop lecturing young people on the wonders of AI and start listening to their valid economic concerns. If we do not actively protect and cultivate entry-level opportunities for our youth, the AI revolution will not feel like progress. Instead, it will feel like a closed door to the next generation.”