Psychology Today · May 31, 2026
What the AI Booing Was Really About

From the Sex Doctors
We're often talking with our listeners about how the world around us shapes our intimate lives and mental well-being. Dr. Marianne’s recent article on Psychology Today, highlighting the widespread "AI booing" at commencements, really struck a chord with us and our patients. It speaks to a profound shift that goes far beyond economics, touching on our fundamental need for meaning and purpose – elements crucial for healthy relationships and a strong sense of self.
What we’re hearing in our practices isn't just anxiety about job security; it’s a deeper existential unease. Patients describe feeling adrift, wondering if their skills or even their personal qualities will remain relevant. This echoes the sentiment Marianne captures so well: AI isn't just threatening paychecks, it’s challenging the very identity many of us derive from our work. When the structure that gives our days purpose starts to crumble, it inevitably impacts our capacity for connection, our mood, and our overall sexual and relational health. We see individuals withdrawing, struggling with shame, and losing the energy for intimacy because their internal world feels so unstable.
The narrative of "disruption" often focuses on efficiency or innovation. But as Marianne points out, it’s a mental health story. For people who have invested years, even decades, into mastering a profession – be it law, medicine, or even therapy – the idea that a machine can replicate or diminish their value can feel like a personal affront, a betrayal of effort. This isn't about being anti-progress; it's about the human cost of rapid, unacknowledged change. It touches on feelings of inadequacy, resentment, and a fear of being left behind that can poison the well of self-esteem and, by extension, our ability to connect meaningfully with others.
Perhaps this unsettling period, as uncomfortable as it is, offers a powerful opportunity for recalibration. If AI nudges us away from defining ourselves purely by productivity or professional achievement, what are we left with? Hopefully, it's a stronger emphasis on what truly sustains us: our relationships, our empathy, our uniquely human capacities for love and connection. This isn't to say we should ignore the practical challenges, but to remind ourselves that real intimacy, the kind we advocate for, flourishes when we value our shared humanity above all else.
Reassess where you derive your sense of purpose, beyond your professional identity. - Prioritize human connection actively, especially during times of uncertainty. - Acknowledge and process feelings of fear or grief about technological shifts, rather than dismissing them.
From the original article
At commencement ceremonies across the country this spring, something unusual kept happening. Multiple speakers told graduating classes that artificial intelligence was the next industrial revolution, and then promptly got booed. It would be easy to dismiss those students as naive or resistant to change. But I don't think that's what was happening. Those graduates understood something the speakers glossed over: the benefits of AI are not evenly distributed, and that one group of people likely to absorb the costs were sitting right there in the audience.
This is a story playing out within many professions. Armed with AI, paralegals are displacing junior attorneys. AI coding tools are undercutting entry-level software engineers. Diagnostic software threatens the billing rates of radiologists. And in field after field, a credential that once guaranteed a certain livelihood no longer does. Take psychotherapy. At least one major insurer has already reduced reimbursement rates for doctoral-level therapists to the level of master's-prepared clinicians, effectively erasing the financial return on years of additional training. This is not an anomaly; it’s a pattern. The advanced degree made a promise, but the market is quietly walking it back. This is disruptive technology doing exactly what it says: disrupting. The question is who absorbs the cost.
This article originally appeared on Psychology Today.
View original on Psychology Today →