GUEST POST from Robert B. Tucker

A curious thing happened at the University of Arizona’s commencement ceremony.

The speaker was former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, one of the most influential figures in the development of the digital economy. Addressing thousands of graduates, Schmidt spoke enthusiastically about artificial intelligence and the transformative role it will play in their lives and careers.

Then something unexpected happened. Students began to boo.

For many observers, the moment was jarring. Why would graduates reject a future of technological abundance, economic growth, and unprecedented innovation? Aren’t young people supposed to be technology’s biggest boosters?

Not anymore, apparently. As a futurist who has spent more than three decades advising leaders on adapting to change and innovation, I see this moment as an inflection point. I think what they were rejecting was a vision of the future being jammed down their throats. Looking at a bleak employment market, these young people were saying en masse, “Your vision of our future is not our vision of our future, and we don’t feel you really have our interest at heart.”

The question at this juncture is: What kind of future are we rushing headlong to build, and who will benefit?

The tech industrial complex spins an appealing vision. But it’s beginning to wear thin. Students and other segments of society are pushing back. They are asking tough questions: Will AI really solve humanity’s greatest challenges? Will it cure diseases, eliminate drudgery, unlock extraordinary productivity gains, and usher in a new era of prosperity, as the so-called tech visionaries proudly claim?

Or could it be that the underlying premise is faulty: that the more intelligence we can automate, the better off society will become. The young people are waking up to the possibility that this is hot air.

Across college campuses, among young professionals, and increasingly among the broader public, there is another narrative taking shape. It is one that many technology leaders seem to want to dismiss: growing unease about where all of this is headed.

Many Americans view AI through the lens of issues much closer to home: skyrocketing electricity bills caused in part by data center proliferation; teen chatbot addiction, and looming job displacement. A recent Stanford study, Canaries in the Coal Mine?, found that young workers in the most AI-exposed occupations saw a 16% relative decline in employment from late 2022 through September 2025.

Over the past several years, I have spoken with educators, business leaders, and students around the world. Increasingly, I hear variations of the emerging narrative. I hear people questioning the tech industry’s vision more sharply. Are we building tools that expand human potential, or tools that gradually replace us? The concern isn’t that AI will become more capable. The concern is that humans will become less so.

Scot Rabe has taught design at Ventura College for decades. He recently described his growing frustration with students. Attendance remains high, but engagement is declining. There is little evidence that students are wrestling deeply with ideas. In his words, “the lights are on, but nobody’s home.”

That observation aligns with broader concerns about what I call human agency—the capacity to act intentionally, make decisions, solve problems, and shape one’s own future.

A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center explored the future of human agency in an increasingly digital world. Experts were deeply divided. Many predicted that emerging technologies would weaken individual autonomy rather than strengthen it.

Their concern deserves attention.

The challenge facing young people today is not simply learning how to use AI. It is learning how to remain fully human in a world increasingly designed to automate thinking, decision-making, and even creativity.

Tim Wu, author of The Age of Extraction, argues that many of today’s largest technology firms operate by extracting value from our attention, data, and behavior. The more time we spend scrolling, clicking, and consuming, the more profitable the system becomes.

But what happens when the same incentives are applied to intelligence itself? What happens when convenience becomes the highest value? What happens when every difficult task can be delegated to a machine? What happens to the development of judgment, wisdom, resilience, and imagination?

These are not anti-technology questions. They are profoundly human questions.

History suggests that societies thrive not when technology advances alone, but when human capability advances alongside it.

The printing press transformed civilization. Electricity transformed civilization. The internet transformed civilization. Yet none of these innovations eliminated the need for human initiative, purpose, or responsibility. If anything, they increased it.

The danger today is not that AI becomes more powerful. The danger is that we gradually surrender the very qualities that make us uniquely human. That may be what those students were trying to express.

Perhaps they were saying that they do not want a future in which every challenge is solved for them. Perhaps they do not want to become passive consumers of machine-generated answers. Perhaps they are pushing back against a worldview that sees efficiency as life’s highest goal.

And perhaps they are asking a deeper question: What role will humans play in the future being built around us?

One vision imagines a future that is increasingly automated, optimized, digitized, and controlled by a small number of powerful technology platforms. Another envisions a future where technology augments rather than replaces human capability. A future where innovation strengthens creativity, deepens relationships, expands opportunity, and reinforces human dignity.

The choice between these futures is being made right now. Every generation inherits a set of technologies. But every generation must also decide how those technologies will shape our lives.

The students who are booing Silicon Valley’s assumptions were doing more than expressing frustration at yet another out-of-touch billionaire. They were reminding us that progress is not simply about building smarter machines. Rather, it is about building a future worth inhabiting.

This article originally appeared in Forbes

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.