> I don't see any fundamental problem with democratization of abilities and removal of gatekeeping.

This parroted argument is getting really tired. It signals either astroturfing or someone who just accepts what they are sold without thinking.

LLMs aren’t “democratising” anything. There’s no democracy in being mostly beholden to a few companies which own the largest and most powerful models, who can cut you off at any time, jack up the prices to inaccessibility, or unilaterally change the terms of the deal.

You know what’s truly “democratic” and without “gatekeeping”? Exactly what we had before, an internet run by collaboration filled with free resources for anyone keen enough to learn.

This is technically true in a lot of ways, but also intellectual and not identifying with what the comment was expressing. It's legitimately very frustrating to have something you enjoy democratized and feel like things are changing.

It would be like if you put in all this time to get fit and skilled on mountain bikes and there was a whole community of people, quiet nature, yada yada, and then suddenly they just changed the rules and anyone with a dirt bike could go on the same trails.

It's double damage for anyone who isn't close to retirement and built their career and invested time (i.e. opportunity cost) into something that might become a lot less valuable and then they are fearful for future economic issues.

I enjoy using LLMs and have stopped writing code, but I also don't pretend that change isn't painful.

> I don't see any fundamental problem with democratization of abilities and removal of gatekeeping.

It was very democratized before, almost anyone could pick up a book or learn these skills on the internet.

Opportunity was democratized for a very long time, all that was needed was the desire to put in the work.

OP sounds frustrated but at the same time the societal promise that was working for longest time (spend personal time specializing and be rewarded) has been broken so I can understand that frustration..

> "removal of gatekeeping"

Gates were put in place for lawyers, doctors, and engineers (real ones, not software "engineers") because the cost of their negligence and malpractice was ruined lives and death. Gatekeeping has value.

Software quality, reliability, and security was already lousy before the advent of LLMs, making it increasingly clear that the gate needed to be kept. Gripes about "gatekeeping" are a dogwhistle for "I would personally benefit from the bar being lowered even further".

So you put these all in the same category: gaining knowledge, gaining abilities, and just obtaining things.

I gatekeep my bike, I keep it behind a gate. If you break the gate open and democratize my bike, you're an idiot.

While I can see your point I also think it is not directly relevant to OP. Firstly, I don't think OP meant that people are idiots for using LLM's, it was just a way of saying that skill is no longer required so even idiots can do it whereas it used to be something that required high skill.

As for the comparisons - some are partly comparable to the current situation, but there's some differences as well. Sure books and online content enabled others to join, thereby reducing the "moat" for those who built careers on esoteric knowledge. But it didn't make things _that_ easy - it still required years of invested time to become a good developer. Also, it happened very gradually and while the developer pie was growing, and the range of tech growing, so developers who kept on top of technology (like OP did) could still be valuable. Of course, no one knows fully how it will play out this time around; maybe the pie will get even bigger, maybe there's still room for lots of developers and the only difference is that the tedious work is done. Sure, then it is comparable. But let's be honest, this has a very real chance of being different (humans inventing AI surely is something special!) and could result in skill-sets collapsing in value at record time. And perhaps worse, without opening new doors. Sure, new types of jobs may appear but they may be so different that they are essentially completely different careers. It is not like in the past you just needed to learn a new programming language.

The real litmus test is whether one would allow LLMs to determine a medical procedure without human check. As of 2026, I wouldn’t. In the same sense I prefer to work with engineers with tons of experience rather than fresh graduates using LLMs

Coding is one of the least gate kept things in history. Literally the only obstacle is "do I want to put in the time to learn it". All Claude is doing is remixing all the free stuff that was already a google search away.

People actually value the effort and dedication required to master a craft. Imagine we invent a drug that allows everyone to achieve olympic level athletic performance, would you say that it "democratises" sports? No, that would be ridiculous.

Elitism is good. Elitism is just. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism.

Skill based one of course.

Democratizing? A handful of companies harvesting data and building products on top of it is democratizing?

Open research papers, that everyone can access is democratizing knowledge. Accessibile worldwide courses, maybe (like open universities).

But LLMs are not quite the sane. This is taking knowledge from everyone and, in the best case, paywalling it.

I agree in spirit that the original comment was classist, but in this context your statements are also out of place, in my opinion.

This is a good response. Progress has always been resisted by incumbents

Exactly. How ridiculous. The world doesn’t owe ‘principal engineers’ shit. I hate to work with people like this.

—- from a ‘principal engineer’

how is 2-3 centralized providers of this new technology "democratization"?

> elitist in a negative way.

It's funny you say that, because I've seen plenty of the reverse elitism from "AI bros" on HN, saying things like:

> Now that I no longer write code, I can focus on the engineering

or

> In my experience, it's the mediocre developers that are more attached to the physical act of writing code, instead of focusing on the engineering

As if getting further and further away from the instructions that the CPU or GPU actually execute is more, not less, a form of engineering, instead of something else, maybe respectable in its own way, but still different, like architecture.

It's akin to someone claiming that they're not only still a legitimate novelist for using ChatGPT or a legitimate illustrator for using stable diffusion, but that delegating the actual details of the arrangement of words into sentences or layers and shapes of pigment in an image, actually makes them more of a novelist or artist, than those who don't.