Artificial intelligence may serve as a fairer judge of merit than human elites, according to Manu Joseph, who argues that AI could dismantle gatekeeping in fields like science and academia. The article opens by comparing James Bond villains and Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei, both claiming to have built world-ending technology, though Amodei appears remorseful. Joseph suggests Big AI CEOs admit their products are dangerous partly to brag about their advancement—noting Meta’s AI recently "made the cut" in hacking—and to position themselves as ethical. A likelier motive, he writes, is to avoid public restraint via government regulation. Scientists, he says, work on beautiful ideas but must appear beneficial to be left alone, prompting AI leaders to pre-empt regulation by creating their own. In July, Demis Hassabis, Google DeepMind’s then CEO and now chairman, published "A Framework for Frontier AI," proposing a US-led independent body modelled on financial self-regulatory organizations to evaluate advanced AI models before public release. Joseph contends self-regulation will not save the industry from governments, nor appease public anxieties. His proposal: Big AI should fund a giant body with billions of dollars to fight gatekeeping—a "tyranny of elite opinions"—where subjective, opaque judgement dominates when tens of thousands apply or create. While the internet reduced some gatekeeping, prestige fraud persists, and AI could destroy human gatekeeping entirely. He cites that Albert Einstein’s revolutionary