It implies that the state of ML research is undemocratic and therefore unfair or somehow opposing the values of our time. It's a ridiculous idea because with such an immense amount of quality information freely available, the only real barrier is intelligence. We can't democratize intelligence, so the sentiment smells a bit anti-meritocratic, rather than democratic (I think these two are often confused). It's really no different from saying that mathematics is undemocratic. Furthermore, it's patronizing to the wider audience by suggesting that they can participate in the field only after it's been brought down to their level of understanding (by the democratizing gatekeepers of course).
