When Lior Susan started Eclipse Ventures in 2015, the firm’s thesis of digitizing the physical world wasn’t particularly popular in Silicon Valley.

“It was the era of enterprise software and SaaS, and it felt fairly lonely the first couple of years,” Susan said on stage at a recent StrictlyVC event in San Francisco.

More than a decade later, Eclipse finds itself at the center of the tech world’s action. The firm’s $6.5 million Series A investment in Cerebras Systems in 2016 paved the way for a total return of $2.5 billion when the semiconductor company went public this week. The firm invested a total of $147 million in Cerebras over time, a bet that generated a 17-fold return at the IPO price of $185 per share, according to Eclipse.

For Susan, the windfall from Cerebras is only the beginning of reaping big rewards from a longstanding belief that because 85% of global GDP is tied to the physical world, investing in companies beyond pure software could be immensely lucrative.

Public markets and startup founders seem to be recognizing the value of physical-world tech now, too. Susan noted that shares of TSMC and Micron recently hit all-time highs, while a growing cohort of elite founders are eager to build startups at the intersection of hardware and software.

“I think people understand that the real moat in software is gone. You can vibe code pretty much whatever you want,” he said.

Susan echoed public market sentiment that earlier this year sent many SaaS stocks tumbling on the belief that enterprises may use Anthropic’s Claude Code or OpenAI’s latest models to create their own bespoke software tools instead.

“What you cannot do with ‘vibe code’ is manufacture wafers, because you need machines and silicon, and they need clean rooms, and a bunch of other things,” Susan said.

When it comes to the tech that touches the physical world, it’s not just semiconductors that are suddenly catching the attention of investors and founders.

Eclipse’s portfolio companies spanning sectors like robotics, energy and defense, raised nearly $15 billion from outside backers last year, and that late-stage momentum reached $4.5 billion in Q1 2026 alone, Susan said. That investor excitement stands in stark contrast to the firm’s early track record: in its first eight years, its portfolio companies raised less than $4 billion in total.

Indeed, the recent follow-on rounds across Eclipse’s portfolio show a track record that any venture firm would envy. Driven by a string of massive late-stage deals this year, the haul includes $1.2 billion for Wayve, $650 million for True Anomaly, $270 million for Bedrock Robotics, and $200 million for Oxide Computer. What’s more, Eclipse was the Series A investor for all four companies.

At first glance, it may seem that investor enthusiasm for physical-world tech is driven purely by AI, whether as an infrastructure input like chips and data centers, or through AI’s power to finally make robotics viable. However, Susan argues that there are other powerful tailwinds driving the momentum.

Besides technology — in this case, AI — what’s important for this market to thrive is capital, customer demand, talent, and policy. Susan means that along with investors and engineers moving away from SaaS to sectors like robotics, semiconductors, space, and mining, the U.S. government is also encouraging these industries through subsidies and favorable regulation.

“This is the first time I believe in America ever, from Henry Ford and Carnegie, those five forces are aligned,” Susan said. “For builders like us, this is the best time to build those companies.”

Commencement season has come around again — and this year, a couple speakers have discovered that it’s tough to get graduating students excited about a future shaped by artificial intelligence.

Last week, Gloria Caulfield, an executive at real estate firm Tavistock Development Company, gave a speech at the University of Central Florida acknowledging that we’re living in a time of “profound change,” which can be both “exciting” and “daunting.”

“The rise of artificial intelligence is the next industrial revolution,” Caulfield declared — prompting the students in the audience to begin booing, getting louder and louder until Caulfield chuckled, turned to the other speakers, and asked, “What happened?”

“Okay, I struck a chord,” she said. Caulfield then tried to resume her speech, saying, “Only a few years ago, AI was not a factor in our lives” — only to be interrupted again by the audience, this time by their loud cheers and applause.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt faced a similar response when he brought up AI at a University of Arizona speech on Friday.

In Schmidt’s case, the criticism actually began before the speech itself, with some student groups calling for him to be removed as commencement speaker due to a lawsuit in which a former girlfriend and business partner accused Schmidt of sexual assault. (He has denied the allegations.) According to a local news report, the booing began even before Schmidt took the stage.

But Schmidt also got loud boos when he told students, “You will help shape artificial intelligence.” The booing was persistent enough that Schmidt tried to speak over it, insisting, “You can now assemble a team of AI agents to help you with the parts that you could never accomplish on your own. When someone offers you a seat on the rocket ship, you do not ask which seat, you just get on.”

To be fair, AI isn’t becoming a third rail at every graduation ceremony. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently spoke at Carnegie Mellon’s commencement, and he didn’t seem to get any audible pushback when he said that AI has “reinvented computing.”

Still, it’s not exactly surprising to find some students in a booing mood. In a recent Gallup poll, only 43% of Americans aged 15 to 34 said it’s a good time to find a job locally, a steep drop from 75% in 2022. 

That pessimism isn’t solely a response to the rise of AI (a shift that even tech industry workers are worried about), but journalist and tech industry critic Brian Merchant suggested that for many students, AI has become “the cruel new face of hyper-scaling capitalism.”

“I too would loudly boo at the prospect of this next industrial revolution if I was in my early twenties, unemployed, and had aspirations for my future greater than entering prompts into an LLM,” Merchant wrote.

Even when graduation speeches didn’t mention AI explicitly, “resilience” was a recurring theme this year. Schmidt himself acknowledged that there is “a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.”

Caulfield, meanwhile, might also have misread her audience of arts and humanities graduates. One student said that before mentioning AI, Caulfield already started to lose them with her “generic” praise of corporate executives like Jeff Bezos.

Another graduate, Alexander Rose Tyson, told The New York Times, “It wasn’t one person that really started the booing. It was just sort of like a collective, ‘This sucks.’”

Lawyers for Elon Musk and OpenAI made their closing arguments this week, and now it’s up to jurors to decide whether OpenAI did anything wrong as it’s transformed into a slightly-more-for-profit organization. 

But as Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I noted on the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, a big theme in the trial’s final days was whether OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is trustworthy — for example, Musk’s attorney Steve Molo grilled Altman about whether statements he’d made during congressional testimony were truthful.

Kirsten noted that Musk has made plenty of misleading statements of his own, and that trust isn’t just an issue for Altman.

“This is a fundamental question [for] a lot of tech journalists, policymakers, and more and more consumers, about all the AI labs,” she said. “It’s really come down to trust, because we don’t have the insight, necessarily — these are all privately held companies, there’s a lot behind the veil still.”

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Anthony Ha: [The end of the trial] led to this really provocative headline from one of our writers, Tim Fernholz, [that] just says, “Who trusts Sam Altman?” Does anyone want to take a stab at answering this? 

Kirsten Korosec: Yeah, Anthony, I’m going to throw it right back to you. Do you trust Sam Altman? 

Anthony: It’s an interesting question because it feels like something that’s kind of a wild question to discuss in a journalistic context, but actually that’s the core of the trial, in a lot of ways. 

Sean O’Kane: That’s not a yes.

Anthony: And it actually seems to be [at the] core of understanding so much of what’s happened at OpenAI, especially this big executive power struggle that they now call The Blip.

It just seems like a lot of people who’ve worked with Altman don’t trust him. And he’s acknowledged this a little bit, because he’ll talk about the fact that he recognizes he’s been conflict averse, telling people what they want to hear, and he’s trying to work on that.

I mean, it sounds plausible, and I can understand how that can lead to misunderstandings in some situations. [But] I’m also a very conflict-averse person and I’d like to think that if any of this stuff went to trial, that people would not be asking, “Is Anthony Ha trustworthy?”

Sean: Still not a yes! 

Kirsten: I think that people would say that you are trustworthy. I will say that question, while provocative, doesn’t just encapsulate what this trial was about. I would zoom out even more and say this is a fundamental question [for] a lot of tech journalists, policymakers, and more and more consumers, about all the AI labs. It’s really come down to trust, because we don’t have the insight, necessarily — these are all privately held companies, there’s a lot behind the veil still.

Maybe when they all IPO, we can get a peek, but it is fundamentally about trust and misuse, and do we believe the intent? And what I would throw back is, sometimes the intent can be worthy, noble, and still misused. It can still end up as a bit of a shit show. I think it’s more than who trusts Sam Altman — although that was very interesting in this trial — but more of that bigger question that we can apply to the entire industry. 

Sean: I’ll say it: I don’t trust him. But you know, I don’t trust most people, so I guess that’s just the baseline. 

We’ll see where this goes. The trial wraps up today. I’ve been very curious to hear how the jury decides this all. I think at the start of this, a big motivator of this was Elon Musk trying to sling mud, at a perceived rival and someone who he feels slighted him. And I don’t know if we know enough yet to say that that was completely accomplished, and whether or not he has a shot at winning. But I think all these people came out of this looking a little bit worse. 

Anthony: And just to get specific, why this is coming up this week is that [Altman] was on the stand and he was basically getting grilled about some statements he’s made in the past, in testimony to [Congress], basically saying he didn’t have any equity in OpenAI. And that is not true because he had a stake through Y Combinator, which he used to run. And tried to brush that off by saying, “I assume that everybody understands what it means to be a passive investor in a VC fund.” And I think [Elon Musk’s] lawyer, somewhat fairly, said “Really? You think the congressman who was interviewing you knew that?”

Kirsten: Yeah, I mean, he was playing the whole semantics game. What I thought was so interesting about [this] is the style of how Sam Altman answered questions [compared to] Elon Musk on the stand. 

So Elon Musk, in many, many, many scenarios and many instances, we can point to the fact that he put something out on Twitter that was a lie or a bit of a fib, and on the stand corrected the record. So there’s a history of, I would say, non-truthfulness-slash-lying, blatant or otherwise, in Elon Musk’s world, but how he treated it was incredibly combative and very different than Altman who really took this [attitude of], “I’m working on it,” and tried to seem sort of affable and I don’t know if it’ll work for him.

Because it really comes down to the core facts, and hopefully that’s what the jury pays attention to. But I thought that that was really interesting — both being untruthful, but how they dealt with it was very different.