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

Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 206 posts

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

#71

Post by coldtea »

thegginthesky wrote: post #68
coldtea wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Depends on the country and the educational system. In some countries no such sham degree is possible to be accepted for an engineering title.

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

#72

Post by taeric »

cjbprime wrote: post #11

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_...

This always depends on context. And often the results aren't as good as you think it will be. Sets up an obvious target for regulatory capture and can stagnate things.

I say all of this as a pro regulation person.

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

#76

Post by arroz »

ravenstine wrote: post #43

Software engineering is also snake-oil. Yes, software can be engineered, but that's not what the vast majority of so-called software engineers are actually doing at their jobs. The title mostly exists to inflate the importance of a programmer with years of experience under their belt. In reality, most of them couldn't explain to you what engineering itself is, and their job primarily consists of duct-taping and build…

What’s your beef with computer science?

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

#77

Post by mablopoule »

cjbprime wrote: post #11

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_...

You can absolutely be a "software engineer" in the legal sense, just not in the US.

Here in France, the engineer diploma is a regulated thing, and there absolutely are software-centered engineering school who are accredited to deliver it, which is how I got mine.

It's in the "Grandes écoles" cursus, which usually follows a more classical STEM-centric cursus called "classes prépa".

As to whether "Software engineering" is a real thing, well on one hand most of it isn't very process-oriented, on the other hand there are such thing as ISO certification for software security, so it's less the individual which is regulated than it is the project in itself when it matters (like critical data-center, or handling of medical data), so it's not like there aren't any regulatory framework in the software world.

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

#78

Post by intelVISA »

hnfong wrote: post #59
intelVISA wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most SWE is snake oil, take one look around and you'll see what I mean... React..? Golang? GUIs?! We stepped too far from The Truth (vim, ghc) and now we are all Oilers.

SWE snake oil is like "Extreme Programming", "whiteboard interviews", "design patterns", "microservice architecture"...

You just know you're in a Bad Shop when you see "unit tests" come out the bag...

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

#79

Post by mdp2021 »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #61
mdp2021 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there will always be some skill

There is a world of difference between the needs in governance in just having to write "Those decorations where I marked the area, make them a bit more Hans Holbein as opposed to Klimt", compared to knowing patching tricks so that if you asked the engine to draw a 'T' you were not being served a 'B'.

This latter example - ask 'B', get 'T' - I have seen from Midjourney only a few hours ago, in the public showcase. I have examined several prompts and results, and very often they do not overlap but very partially - the engine is like a wild horse.

That this is not intrinsic, but just a current stage, is only part of the story: the user will want to have a tool that allows the production of what the artist had exactly in mind (not just "anything nice as /inspired/ by our suggestions"). It is the normal form of the product in its "ready for shipment" state.

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

#80

Post by taeric »

Veen wrote: post #39
psychlops wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should rethink that whenever you drive under a bridge or get on a boat. The reason they collapse or sink so infrequently is largely because engineers are accredited and held responsible.

Causality will be tough here. I could also credit the certification regulations just as much. And truth to tell, construction techniques are vital, yet we don't value the construction workers in this way.

That is, it is a whole system. And largely comes to costs and known building techniques. After all, certified engineers built "galloping gerdy."

(And I didn't even get into maintenance costs and application. )

Post reply on HN