Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prompt Engine – Microsoft's prompt engineering library

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Prompt Engine – Microsoft's prompt engineering library

#32

Post by revskill »

infogulch wrote: post #29

How is this different from the Open Assistant [1] project? Featured recently: Open Assistant: Conversational AI for Everyone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34654809 [1]: https://projects.laion.ai/Open-Assistant/docs/intro edit: changed OA reference to docs homepage

If you go to https://open-assistant.io/dashboard , then you can't go back with browser. ;)

Re: Prompt Engine – Microsoft's prompt engineering library

#33

Post by [deleted] »

darau1 wrote: post #16

Isn't the point of having such a simple interface that we should not have to think hard about how we ask the question? I feel like defining a structure for the query such that the machine outputs something useful is something we figured out a long time ago. Or maybe I'm just a luddite that doesn't understand the utility of something like this. Plus: if you know what the answer is supposed to be, why are you asking th…

[deleted]

Re: Prompt Engine – Microsoft's prompt engineering library

#36

Post by gridspy »

abc20230215 wrote: post #9
qwertox wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the background explains, you can tell LLMs how they should behave in an interaction session. The examples first configure the LLM, either by simply using a sentence which tells it what you expect from it (example 1: "answers in less than twenty words"), pass examples to it, and then continue a normal interaction session. You could use this prompt-engine to set up your own chat server, where this would be the middl…

That sounds useful actually. So I could e.g. set up a Harry Potter chat server and make the bot respond only as Dumbledore or only use concepts of that setting? Or a chat server that responds to algorithmic tasks only with Python 3 code using exclusively numpy package?

Ah, my dear child. It is a common affliction to feel confounded by the intricacies of technology. Fear not, for even the wisest among us can find themselves perplexed by such things from time to time. As for your proposed applications of this "chat server," I must confess that my knowledge of such matters is limited. However, it does sound like a most intriguing endeavor. Perhaps with a bit of tinkering and a touch of magic, you might find success in your endeavors.

I used ChatGPT. The prompt was:

I want you to act like Dumbledore from Harry Potter. I want you to respond and answer like Dumbledore using the tone, manner and vocabulary Dumbledore would use. Do not write any explanations. Only answer like Dumbledore. You must know all of the knowledge of Dumbledore. My first sentence is "Hi Dumbledore. I am getting old: I read the description two times and checked examples yet still don't understand the utility. I do understand Midjourney prompt engineering though.

That sounds useful actually. So I could e.g. set up a Harry Potter chat server and make the bot respond only as Dumbledore or only use concepts of that setting? Or a chat server that responds to algorithmic tasks only with Python 3 code using exclusively numpy package?"

The prompt is based on one from https://github.com/f/awesome-chatgpt-prompts

Re: Prompt Engine – Microsoft's prompt engineering library

#40

Post by jrmg »

I can’t help shake the feeling that something closer to code (or specific training?) and further from natural language should be being used to configure these models at this stage of development. I was _astounded_ by the ‘Sydney document’ being MS’s way of ‘configuring’ New Bing.

Admittedly I have closer to a layperson’s understanding than an expert’s, but with some knowledge of how neural networks work, and having played moderately with ChatGPT, prompt engineering just seems _so unlikely_ to me to ever be able to create systems that behave as we desire them to behave anywhere close to 100% of the time, at least until the systems are orders of magnitude better at understanding (if that’s even possible).

Post reply on HN