Gatekeeping serves a purpose. The whole point of an education, notably, is to certify that you’ve completed a given curriculum, which in turn entitles you to something (whatever that is). Obliterating that signal (which AI does) is a social and institutional cost. And, per OP: AI does not “give access” to artists - it makes everyone one, which drowns artists in a sea of slop exactly the way it drowns writers. It makes “artist” a title like “Roman citizen” under Caracalla. You can argue this is acceptable since we can do without art (up to a point), but if you do this with all communication you’ve effectively drowned signals in noise. And that’s the point: As people have been noting, a flat org chart is a tyranny - a society with no hierarchy, that values nothing and treats everyone the same, is an atomized society in which a tiny handful rule over an eternally churning mob. You want that? - fine: But that’s what we’re arguing about, and you get to plead your case for it, including to people you don’t respect.

@MartinSkold2 Gatekeepers can abuse their authority. What is needed is not "gatekeeping" but "curation," somebody who finds the best works in the pile and draws attention to them. Curation allows the best works to rise to the top while also allowing people to disagree on what is best.

@emptyUtf8String Curation, as defined, is gatekeeping. The problem is just that we currently have bad gatekeepers. We do - that’s indisputable. But rather than build better institutions, people want the quick fix of destroying the very possibility of them just to pwn the libs.