Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

news.ycombinator.com

61–70 of 206 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

#61
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. People who have not tried to interact with these models don't understand there is actually quite a lot of skill in navigating the latent space.

It really should be just an intermediate phase. Proper, solid control system must be created. First you have Stable Diffusion, then you create ControlNet - and this as just a beginning. This is also one of the reasons why the problem of transparency ("but why and how does it work?") is so important in Machine Learning: allowing control.

Adding a working control system doesn't take away the fact it requires skill though.

It seems like people think that one day they will be able to give a vague prompt and generate exactly what they were looking for, which I don't believe will ever happen. It feels like there will always be some skill in navigating the model.

Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

#62
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineering is a practice. Like medicine, but we’re building machines that run in a virtual space. We architect and build houses in our minds. We send those projects to production to make the business money. That’s engineering.

Eh yes and no. "Traditional" engineering professions, ones where you need to get licensed, are all grounded in physics. Software engineering isn't (ignore the fact that bits running on silicon is physics, it's irrelevant). Software engineering is based on best practices and algorithms that are based on...some guy writing them, saying they're good, and others trusting that they're good. There's a million different way…

"There's a million different ways to make something. Million different opinions. Million different cargo cults."

So... different tradeoff? Sounds like engineering to me :).

Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

#64

It's okay; software engineering isn't real either. (In many countries, the word "engineer" is regulated -- you can't call yourself an engineer without professional qualifications and oversight.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_...

Yes it is. It’s a protected term in Canada and they have software engineers.

Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

#65

It's okay; software engineering isn't real either. (In many countries, the word "engineer" is regulated -- you can't call yourself an engineer without professional qualifications and oversight.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_...

Or you get a diploma for that, and you are a bona fide engineer.

Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

#66

It's okay; software engineering isn't real either. (In many countries, the word "engineer" is regulated -- you can't call yourself an engineer without professional qualifications and oversight.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_...

Isn't real?

You write about people who sling PHP or Javascript spaghetti?

I have engineering degree in computer science (I think it is mostly thing in eastern Europe, you have bunch of electronics, math, computer architecture to learn), I worked on automotive software which is I have to say fairly regulated. Where you have to care for things like ISO or MISRA standards in your code.

I don't mind people calling themselves "software engineer" even if they whip up front-end - but I do mind if someone calls "software engineering isn't real".

;)

Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

#68
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think a country charging fees to bless a word makes a profession more or less real.

It does however give it better control, a fixed threshold in terms of training that applicants should pass, and more oversight. Those are the important parts, being real or not is irrelevant. Snake-oil selling is also a very real profession.

Truth to be told, Engineering license requirements have a bigger effect in gate keeping the profession and keep supply restricted, much like any other regulated profession. Gate keeping has some benefits, but is easily circumvented by bad actors all the time, such as all the sham degrees that just churn out the bare minimum to pass licensing tests.

If all the licensing to architects, doctors, engineers, lawyers, and so on, really had a big impact on quality, the world we live in would be very different and better. But that doesn't happen because licensing a profession only works if quality is upheld on all steps of the professional education chain.

A lot of software companies circumvent all of these downsides of bad quality in education by raising the bar on the hiring pipeline with a bunch of tests and so on. Does it always work? No, just like licensing doesn't. But at least it keep la the profession accessible to those who are willing to study algorithms, data structures and so on.

There's no perfect system in our world, but I am glad we don't have license requirements to develop software. I am a statistician that became a dev through self studying, training and learning on the job, and I also know many others (even real engineers) that turned to this profession without graduating in the field and contribute a ton with their specific background knowledge.

Should everyone be called engineers? Probably not as it will elude to licensing the profession, but not calling yourself one decreases chances of finding another job dramatically.

A true tragedy tbh, I'd rather if everyone called themselves devs, scientists or something less loaded than engineer.

Post reply on HN