"But it happened."

Overview

The video criticizes how Eric Schmidt (ex-Google CEO) framed technology and AI during a University of Arizona commencement speech—especially the mismatch between his optimistic talking points and his passive explanation of harms that occurred during his tenure in Silicon Valley.

Main points and argument

The speech’s two-part structure

The critique emphasizes the speech’s two-part structure:

• Second half: Schmidt delivers AI-themed “positive” messages that the audience reportedly booed throughout, aligning with a broader pattern where commencement speakers are rejected when they discuss AI.
• First half (the focus of the critique): Schmidt acknowledges major negative outcomes tied to internet platforms—such as:
  • Polarization of democracies
  • Degradation of the public square
  • Alienation/unsettling of young people

However, the video argues he presents these harms in a passive, non-accountable tone—essentially: “we didn’t plan it, but it happened.”

Core critique: harms without responsibility

The narrator argues Schmidt’s framing treats negative consequences as unintended downstream effects, rather than outcomes of deliberate business choices.

The criticism is summarized as: good intentions + “it happened,” without any:

• “we caused it,”
• “we failed,” or
• “here’s what we did wrong.”

Historical/industry accountability claim

The video claims that during Schmidt’s leadership period (roughly 2001–2017), Google and the broader tech industry developed and entrenched “dark patterns” associated with:

• Ads
• Data collection
• Behavioral targeting
• Manipulation (including A/B testing and optimization for engagement)

Because Schmidt was a primary decision-maker in that era, the narrator argues it’s implausible to pretend that only the “tool” (e.g., search/connection) was built while the harmful business layer that shaped user experience “just happened.”

Why the AI booing matters (in the narrator’s view)

The narrator suggests the students’ boos are not merely anti-AI sentiment. Instead, they reflect fear that the next wave of technology will repeat the same pattern:

• Apply dystopian incentives (dark patterns) on top of a promising tool

The video also implies students have lived their whole lives under the consequences of these systems—such as tracking, data selling, and lack of ownership—so Schmidt’s message lands as unreconciled with their lived reality.

Proposed “missing content”: introspection, apology, and safeguards

The narrator argues Schmidt offered none of the elements that might rebuild trust, including:

• acknowledgment of culpability,
• explanation of why harms were allowed,
• lessons learned, or
• concrete guidance to prevent recurrence with AI.

To avoid repeating past mistakes, the video’s takeaway is that leaders should explain both:

• “why it happened” and
• “how to prevent it next time.”

Conclusion

The video ends by urging others to scrutinize and amplify this issue: it’s not just an AI “boomer” moment, but a claim that a key architect of internet-era harms delivered a lack-of-accountability message to a generation shaped by those harms—raising the risk that AI will follow the same dystopian trajectory unless responsibility and preventive measures are addressed.

Presenters or contributors

• Eric Schmidt — speaker in the commencement speech
• The video narrator/creator — unnamed; analyzed the speech and audience reaction