31–40 of 206 posts
Is social engineering just snake oil?
My question is - for social or political engineering, you can gain definite knowledge (spying, observing, researching, information extraction) and then devise something.
How to do the prompt engineering exactly based on what knowledge? How to formulize and document that knowledge so that it isn't just about intuition and gut feeling but rather a learnable and transferable skill?
https://mitchellh.com/writing/prompt-engineering-vs-blind-pr...
Most of what we see on Twitter or YouTube is Blind Prompting. However, it is possible to apply an engineering mindset to prompting and that is what we should call prompt engineering. Check out the article for a much more detailed framing.
Dair AI also has some nice info and resources ( with academic papers) about prompt engineering.
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_...
An engineer is generally liable for what they sign off on. Software engineering isn't anything like that and all products are filled with legalese to restrict liability.
This doesn't seem to apply in the realm I've been working in. We've had to do the exact opposite thing.
In small, B2B software companies you may find that accepting an uncomfortable amount of liability is usually the only way to get your foot in the door. Certain promises have to be made (very carefully!) or no business would occur at all.
For example, if we told our banking clients that "if your front-line app crashes we might have it fixed in 5-7 days" just to be safe, they likely would have little-to-no interest in utilizing our solution. We have to say things like "We will respond within 1 hour and send a polite apology letter to your CTO every time the server makes a weird noise". And, we have to "engineer" our solution so that we have a minuscule chance of hitting that promised target.
Consider that in a some person who has to own all of the pain that comes along with these decision. Is that person not an "engineer" by some arbitrary definition? Sure. But, for the purposes of "a professional weighing all of the pros/cons and making a decision that they intend to accept all consequences for" - I think it's the same effective practice.
Ultimately, "software engineering" is a very broad space with varying degrees of professionalism. At some ends, you will find things that approximate actual engineering. At others, you will find things that appear more academic or artistic. The context is what defines the title of "engineer" for me.
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_...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An engineer is generally liable for what they sign off on. Software engineering isn't anything like that and all products are filled with legalese to restrict liability.
> all products are filled with legalese to restrict liability. This doesn't seem to apply in the realm I've been working in. We've had to do the exact opposite thing. In small, B2B software companies you may find that accepting an uncomfortable amount of liability is usually the only way to get your foot in the door. Certain promises have to be made (very carefully!) or no business would occur at all. For example, if…
The company would have to accept it. No legal trouble for the developper.
Prompt engineering is an 'oil' alright. It's a lubricant to make models work better. The idea of engineering being backed by solid mathematical understanding is a relatively post-calculus idea. For the longest time, we built bridges a certain way, because those are the bridges that stood. We were flying planes long before we understood flight. At the end of the day, engineering is the cycle of "identify a pain point…
This isn't true. Sir George Cayley elucidated several aerodynamic principles significantly in advance of the Wright Brothers first flights. The Wrights took advantage of this knowledge in designing their propellers and planes. We have since learned a lot more about how flight works, but the guiding principles of lift, drag, and thrust predate the mechanical engineering to realize a heavier than air aircraft.
I like this framing by Michael Hashimoto, on Prompt Engineering: https://mitchellh.com/writing/prompt-engineering-vs-blind-pr... Most of what we see on Twitter or YouTube is Blind Prompting. However, it is possible to apply an engineering mindset to prompting and that is what we should call prompt engineering. Check out the article for a much more detailed framing. Dair AI also has some nice info and resources ( with…
The article is reasonable, but also shows a big gap in tooling, as the techniques there feel closer to linting & typing then testing once you do more interesting prompts. They don't check the interesting parts..
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_...
I don't think a country charging fees to bless a word makes a profession more or less real.
Those are the important parts, being real or not is irrelevant. Snake-oil selling is also a very real profession.
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_...
I don't think a country charging fees to bless a word makes a profession more or less real.