I'll take that job for the right pay, so I don't see the problem. Stack overflow gatekeepers close questions, with links to a similar question, and reasons why it's not a duplicate, as a duplicate. Better yet, the answer scoring system keeps accepted answers from 7 years ago as the top rated answer when the library and ecosystem's moved on, and that answer no longer works. Gatekeeping itself is not inherently bad, I agree, but Stack Overflow has become aggressively hostile to its original mission.

> I'll take that job for the right pay, so I don't see the problem

The problem for me at least is that companies can be irrational longer than I can remain solvent, so "the right pay" feels like it is going to wind up being "whatever man I just need to pay my bills".

I suspect I'm not alone. I actually suspect that I'm the very common case. And it's not because I'm bad with money or broke either. it's just because I can't afford to retire and companies can afford to be irrational a long, long time

Interesting. My thoughts are from the other direction. As someone who's been programming for a while, if we presume novices (with money) are using LLMs to write programs but that the LLMs are getting stuck, and they just need some (human) help fixing their code, then I'm happy to help them untangle their mess, if they pay me for my time.

I've actually had this job before in the past, fixing the novice code of someone who came before

It didn't pay nearly well enough to make it worth the headache for me

>But gatekeeping is actually good if you care about quality, and I think we're going to discover that more with LLMs

The people who you might be justified in gatekeeping against are the very same who become the gatekeepers. They gravitate towards that role because deliberately or instinctively they understand that they either capture it, or get blocked by it.