tl;dr– Philosophy's very important, and it guides the world! Though the term "philosophy" is often appropriated by folks who're moreso traditionalists reenacting historical practices than actual modern-day philosophers. Such so-called "philosophers" might be charitably characterized as misguided.
Two different types of Philosophy: modern polymaths vs. historical reenactors.
I'd suggest considering what "Philosophy" means.
Historically, Philosophy was simply the name for all fields of study; it included math, science, medicine, engineering, politics, business, and so forth. Only later, as the knowledge-pool grew, was there so much concern for particular disciplines (mathematicians, physicists, chemists, etc.).
Today there're two competing notions of Philosophy:
The historical notion that includes everything; basically what polymaths study.
The history of philosophy and some of its derivatives; basically, what Philosophy-majors study in college.
That first notion of Philosophy is of paramount importance; it underlies all fields, guiding human knowledge. For example:
Quantum-Computing is one offshoot, combining Quantum-Mechanics with Computer-Science and Engineering.
The whole metaverse thing is another offshoot, rewriting the direction for society itself as a function of computing, economics, politics, AI, and so forth.
This Philosophy is literally changing humanity.
However, the second notion of Philosophy is a very different thing. It's more historical, polite, and less informed. It's more of a lifestyle aesthetic than intellectual pursuit.
I struggle to see the practice of philosophy as a particularly productive one. It seems to me that any philosophical discussion is doomed to an eventual outcome of unclarity. After all, what is philosophy except the discussion of concepts deemed too complex to contemplate scientifically? And in such cases, how will we ever decide who is right and who is wrong? And if we can't decide that, how will we choose which argument to act on? Probably the side of whomever communicated the argument most elegantly and with the greatest charisma.
Lack of clarity? No right-vs.-wrong, but rather preference based on elegance and charisma? The egotistical notion that this is allowable because things are "too complex" for science?
Yeah, that's definitely the second notion of Philosophy. And, yeah, it's silly.
Where are modern-day philosophers?
If you check out different disciplines, e.g. Physics, then you might find a few different kinds of folks:
Some are more like technicians; they memorized what's in the textbooks and may have some rote-memorized information, though not a strong grasp of the underlying field.
Some might be more like narrowly-focused thinkers; they may actually understand their field, though not tend to look too far beyond it.
Others might be more general thinkers, even if they do their discipline as a career. These would be more modern-day philosophers.
Philosophers may not always out-perform technicians in their careers. For example, sometimes a researcher might get famous for a chance discovery, even if they might not have a particularly solid grasp on the conceptual underpinnings.
However, Philosophy itself is important. The broader perspectives that come from more general consideration help guide folks in shaping the future.