Either way it doesn't matter. As someone who has used Windows in a significant way since the 90s, the taskbar and start menu are a buggy mess. The new design is awful, I just want a list of my programs like before.

This of course will be software in general imho. It's not that the profession will disappear overnight. There is going to be this tight squeeze until all the margin/excess salaries/etc.. is gone. There is also going to be immense pressure to produce as much as possible and productivity expectations are going to go way up (even if it is unjustified).

Basically, the good days are over. It's going to be a miserable profession.

If anything I consider fundamentals in STEM (such as Math/CS) to be even more valuable moving forward.

I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased). I feel that current models are missing critical thinking skills that I feel you need to fully take on this role.

This might be acceptable if it prevented or limited nefarious use cases. But it does no such thing. It doesn't help at all on that front actually and is not a problem that can be solved by technology alone.

I view SynthId as more of a method of control. It's a way for Google to label work produced by an individual using their tools as their own.

I much prefer open models that let me be creative, write code, etc.. without trying to control/track/mark me.

In fact, the only thing allowing differentiation now is how compute heavy current architectures are. It's very possible this will turn out to not be necessary.

Also my logic was not "Nefarious uses require no safety rails". That was your logic you injected into the conversation. I was merely saying that nefarious users were more likely to use models with safety rails off.

It actually reeks of Google, since it's a technical solution to a people problem. Google doesn't seem to understand people.