51–53 of 53 posts
I wonder if "prompt engineering" will be replaced by improvements to LLMs within the next couple years and this is just a bad DX step gap along the journey
I wrote a response to this argument here: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Feb/21/in-defense-of-prompt-e... Short version: I think prompt engineering will be an important skill for a very long time. Using these systems to the maximum of their (currently unknown) potential will always involve expert knowledge!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you were trying to prove some random guy on the internet wrong (and failed hilariously), but I linked a peer reviewed paper. That paper has even been cited by gwern in his article on GPT-3's creative writing capabilities: https://gwern.net/gpt-3 . Sometimes people here DO know what they are talking about! And even if you do somehow get lucky and get one prompt where it does this one time, it's never going to b…
The previous poster is gwern... Regardless, peer review does not mean that the arguments of the paper are correct (and viceversa), as gwern just shown.
Reading comprehension!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t prompt engineering a human way to explore the latent space of the model to create the mathematical interactions we want/deem useful? A human way of traversing the hyperdimensionalty. Given your background, would you say that prompt engineering is about finding the spaces in latent space the bound the model’s “knowledge” for our uses?
Yes, but I think the folks who work on technical alignment would like to have stronger guarantees—I think they would like to end up with formal guarantees that the AI will only be helpful, and not harmful.