The priesthood of process

The critics aren’t afraid you’ll fail. They’re afraid you’ll succeed without them.

When people start building with AI, something interesting tends to happen.

People actually solve problems. They build useful tools, launch products, and share solutions that make a difference for real people.

And then, almost predictably, the criticism pours in.

“This won’t scale.” “This isn’t secure.” “This isn’t maintainable.” “Real engineers wouldn’t build it like this.”

But the critics rarely focus on whether the solution works. Instead, they obsess about whether it followed their rules.

I’ve seen this happen repeatedly, and realised it’s not really about quality. It’s about who gets to decide how solutions are made.

The power shift

Gatekeepers have always existed. Twenty years ago, launching even a simple website required developers. Designing a logo meant hiring a graphic designer. Building an app involved an entire technical team.

And this wasn’t entirely artificial. Specialised skills genuinely took years to build up, and gatekeepers held valuable knowledge that was hard to acquire.

But today, new tools rapidly close the gap between having an idea and creating something real. The distance between “I wish this existed” and “I built this” is smaller than ever.

This terrifies traditional gatekeepers, and not because new tools produce inferior solutions. It terrifies them because people are building things that previously wouldn’t have existed at all.

What gatekeepers miss is that creators using these new tools aren’t skipping research, empathy, or deep understanding of problems. They’re just applying these fundamentals differently, and without needing anyone’s permission.

Sure, new job titles like “Vibe Designer” or “Prompt Engineer” sound absurd at first. And of course, not every AI-driven project is groundbreaking. But dismissing an entire wave of innovation just because it doesn’t fit traditional roles or processes reflects discomfort with change, not genuine concern for quality.

Real creators know the core principles still matter: understand the problem deeply, empathise with users, iterate thoughtfully. The only difference now is that fewer people need gatekeeper approval to begin.

What’s really being protected?

Look closely at common criticisms and you’ll see patterns. Critics warn projects “won’t scale,” even though most solutions never need to scale. They insist something “isn’t secure,” despite many small projects not facing significant security threats. They claim something isn’t “maintainable,” assuming all projects require long-term upkeep. Which simply isn’t true.

These concerns aren’t entirely wrong. But most projects never grow large enough for them to matter, often because they fail to solve meaningful problems.

When a solution solves a real problem, it naturally evolves, addressing challenges over time. Starting imperfectly creates momentum, validating whether the issue genuinely matters before investing in perfect architecture.

But this approach threatens traditional power structures. It suggests creators can start without permission, build solutions first, and optimise later. It values learning by doing over formal approval.

Gatekeepers frame their concerns around quality. But often, they’re actually protecting control.

Religious undertones

Technical criticism often feels strangely religious. There’s talk of the “proper way,” the “right approach,” the “correct architecture.”

There’s a priesthood with special knowledge, sacred texts (best practices), rituals (the right process), and blasphemies (shortcuts). This isn’t accidental. Throughout history, power structures have made straightforward things seem mystical, creating barriers to justify control.

Technology mirrors this dynamic. We’ve built a priesthood of process, complete with gatekeepers dictating who can, and can’t, build.

As always, when democratisation begins, the priesthood responds predictably: heresy must be condemned.

The quality argument

Gatekeeping’s primary defense is quality. Critics argue that without proper processes, solutions become shoddy or dangerous.

There’s truth here. Expertise matters, experience prevents known mistakes, and good processes improve outcomes.

Yet this argument misses two critical points.

First, it assumes technical elegance is the ultimate quality measure and that perfect code matters more than whether something solves a real problem. To someone with a genuine issue, an imperfect but working solution beats a perfect, theoretical one every time.

Second, it misunderstands how quality emerges. Few products start perfectly. Most begin “good enough” to address a need and gradually improve.

Gatekeepers get this backward, demanding perfection before allowing solutions to exist. That’s not how innovation functions, it’s how it dies.

The path forward

I’m not against expertise or technical fundamentals. Deep expertise remains essential for complex, high-stakes challenges.

But we must challenge a system where perfection prevents problem-solving, theoretical objections block practical solutions, and following the “right” process outweighs achieving real outcomes.

New tools democratise creation. They empower people to address real problems without first needing permission from traditional gatekeepers.

Specialists are still needed, but expertise should arrive precisely when it’s necessary, not as a barrier to starting.

That’s because building something useful, however imperfect, beats building nothing at all.

The real question

When someone criticises how a solution was built, I usually ask one simple question:

“Would you prefer this solution didn’t exist?”

Because often, that’s the actual alternative, not a more elegant version, but none at all.

Their honest answer reveals whether their objection concerns quality or losing control.

Gatekeepers will keep insisting you’re doing it wrong.

But the people whose problems you solve?

They’ll just be glad you built something that works.

Stay Connected

After a decade helping designers at Netflix, Google, and Amazon navigate their careers, I’ve brought everything together in one place.

From weekly building-with-AI workshops to the Two-Week Reset system that helps people land opportunities in any market, you can find it all on my site.

Check it out here: https://mindaugasp.com/

Follow along for insights on getting unstuck, getting noticed, and navigating the career world.