It's not clear to me why they booed him. you think for only asserting predictions that benefit him? Not because they agree on those predictions and don't want that future, blame him for this role in it?

From reading the text of the article, and the direct quotes, I'm also unclear on why they booed him.

My guess is because of what he's done, or at least perceived to have done, in the area of AI. Because what he said (at least to me) didn't seem boo-worthy, but in the context of who is saying it, I can see it.

Put another way, if someone that the audience liked said the same things, its not clear the person would get booed.

I think it's not clear to him either why he was booed.

He should ask Claude what it thinks

It was the same reaction from that other graduation speaker last week who was also booed over her remarks on AI. Totally dumbfounded about why anyone might not like AI.

These ghouls live in a totally different world than the rest of us and actually think everyone shares their positive outlook on AI.

We need more of this booing. Put up a consistent front and let these people know their views are not shared.

AI is going to take away their jobs, big companies like google will profit greatly, meanwhile accelerating climate change with full speed ahead data centers, and no real thought about what will happen to all these unemployed graduates. But also try to keep an open mind

If you don't know why he was boo'd I suggest taking some emotional intelligence courses and maybe open up a physical newspaper once a week or so.

People with lots of power and clout contribute to making predictions reality by all making predictions that make similar assumptions. The predictions become more likely because people already behave as if they're likely.

Honestly I think they're just booing at "AI" in general. He could have talked about any other topic. Imagine how graduates feel about AI.

I'm guessing the reason is probably the sex allegations. I don't see a graduating class that probably used an LLM for every single homework assignment boo'ing a speech because of AI alone. When it comes to sex allegations in the US, you are guilty until proven innocent, even more so as a powerful and/or rich individual. Of course shame on him if it's true, but in this day and age it doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

Maybe they were booing because of his "no-poach" policy while at Google or the allegations of sexual assault, stalking, and digital surveillance.

I would boo him if I was there.

Shouting people down isn’t “open debate”.

He was on stage and had a mic. I don’t know that the students had a lot of options to make their voices heard in the situation. And since folks like Schmidt already have access to channels to spread their opinions and this was the students’ graduation I think they get a pass.

This is exactly the meme: “I am being silenced! says the man with the microphone, book deal, and celebrity-level media access.”

AI promotional strategies are profoundly and uniquely illiberal.

AI leaders are not interested in open debate and they have demonstrated this again and again.

Shouting this person down is the appropriate, humane response.

Okay, "new_account_100", you don't have to reply to every single comment in this thread lol. Chill a bit.

I echo their sentiments 100%, I doubt I'm alone here either.

I do, too, but a throwaway account busting into a conversation and screaming "everyone listen to me, me, me!" is a bit obnoxious, you know?

I'm only a throwaway account because they ban you for making well-received comments against AI.

We don't do that. We do ban accounts for egregiously breaking HN's guidelines, as you've already done repeatedly with this account.

Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We love you!

I love you too

Speaking over people on a microphone and loudspeaker isn't open debate either

Sure, but where is this mythical "open debate" where nobody important ever shows up?

Schmidt paying out millions in political donations isn't open debate. Schmidt having a speaking role at a commencement without anyone able to respond to him isn't "open debate". This is purely a monologue. There is no debate that was going to be had in the first place because Schmidt, by virtue of the location and occassion, wouldn't allow a response.

OK Charlie Kirk

Shouting people with power down is the closest to an open debate you will get with them.

No one with power like Schmidt will join in an open debate with you and me (well, unless you are one of the 9-figure millionaires that might be around HN), they circulate around others with similar power, they don't engage with the powerless, they have no need for it. They are not having a debate with us about rolling out AI, they just wield their power and do it unto us.

Getting some backlash is the bare minimum, if our democratic systems worked we could use democratic processes to curtail their power, unfortunately those systems are also tilted very heavily towards the ones with outsized power already. If you leave people without a voice, shouting the powerful ones down is the least you should expect.

These guys are obviously both tone deaf and totally unconcerned with the desires and fears of the next generation of hopeful knowledge workers. To have the audacity and callousness to stand in front of a group of people you are hoping to destroy for profit, and talk about the technology you are going to use to do this… I’m surprised these guys are only getting booed.

He could have stopped reading his script and addressed the obvious concern. He didn't. The students clearly wanted him to address their concerns, not hear a sales pitch.

And he's probably there as the inspirational, senior, mature, leadership figure. That failed hard.

Booing is a valid form of debate. We could shout "your arguments are not made in good faith and you are a bad actor" but a boo accomplishes the same thing and is far more effective.

This was a speech, not a debate. When you don’t like someone’s speech, this is how you can show it. People have been doing it for as long as people have given speeches.

> Schmidt urged graduates to embrace freedom.

> graduates embraced freedom and boo'd schmidt.

Schmidt: No, not like that!

I think that the deeper topic is that there is a sense of double-speak going around, they mean freedom but what they really mean is to use the word and its meaning and to attach it to their own goals, in this case AI because google has a vested interest in that.

Billionaires’ and businesses’ freedom to replace creative and white collar workers with obedient and 24/7-working AI.

Any time rich people talk about freedom, they mean rich people freedom.

A lot of these rich guys seem to think that embracing open debate means that people listen to them and don't ever criticize them.

Schmidt wasn’t specifically talking about Israel. Kirk was.

Oh yeah, "for talking" if you ignore what those words were. Just like J6 was "talking".