> But instead of telling them how to improve Gatekeeping implies that this author actually has something he can keep from you, like universities gatekeeping a

> But instead of telling them how to improve Gatekeeping implies that this author actually has something he can keep from you, like universities gatekeeping a certificate for intellectual credibility, or OpenAI saying that they have information that is too dangerous for the world. The personal refusal to acknowledge anyone for anything is only gatekeeping insofar as the public ought have some moral prerogative to that person's acknowledgment. Why is this one author's acknowledgment so interesting that we should have a debate over it? In the face of all priorities, does this really bubble up to the top?