I'm sure one can develop great skill in their arcane incantations,
but how we call it is a matter of taste
Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
151–160 of 206 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#152I don't know if it is fair to call it "engineering" but it is not snake oil.
Prompt engineering is programming but with natural language. Even between us humans being able to communicate clearly is essential part of understanding each other. It is also a form of programming.
Prompt engineering, or whatever you want to call it, will be an important part of how we communicate with machines in the future.
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#153Prompt wrangling, prompt whispering?
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#154It seems akin to SEO experts identifying as engineers. Can we just call them experts or wizards if they want to be fantastical.
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that easy Can you code? Can you illustrate? Can you build? Piece by piece, you sketch, implement, hone, finetune, improve, correct, retry, go into detail, expand... The ease of the process is relative to the tools adopted. Of course there has to be knowledge behind it. Of course you have to know your tools. But "wild horse" and "diligent consultant", axe and scalpel require different degrees areas and modalities of…
My point is that even with improved tooling I don't think it will be accessible to a layman. You will need to develop some skill to wield the tool. It seems like you agree based on parts of your comment like "A well built tool will build on the competences already natural for the professional".
[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#156[dead]
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#157Earlier 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.
If by "some skill" you mean the basic ability to type vaguely coherent English, than I agree.
If anything the recent generative art advancements coming out (Firefly, MJ v5) would seem to refute your point. There was a time when diffusion models require some level of knowledge and skill to use. To get high quality output, it was in your best interest to learn about the different types of samplers, upscalers, hyper networks, textual inversions, understanding denoising etc. etc.
Now? I'd say the millions of active users on MJ would seem to prove you wrong.
As far as language models like GPT, we've already seen the average level of skill needed come down with each successive release, ChatGPT is easier to use than GPT-3 which is easier to use than GPT-2.
Furthermore, devs in the space (Stability, OpenAI, etc) could refine/train pre-processing LLM models that transform more accessible amateur prompts to more professional prompts at real-time.
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
But those consumer apps that use or sell personal data against that persons interests as a business model, or those that leak or lose personal information through negligence are very harmful to society. Why should they get a pass?
That's a totally unrelated argument. Plenty of "real" engineers work on weapons systems. Architects work on ultra luxury skyscrapers for Saudi businessmen. Civil engineers work on new highways that destroy poor neighborhoods. No one is talking about ethics here.
How is it unrelated if we’re talking about software engineering as a profession? Yes there are some SWEs working in engineering fields, but the majority are not classically “engineers”
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, pretty much this. Only a subset of the actual activity that falls under the umbrella of "software engineering" could be called engineering in the traditional sense. The engineers working on aviation software and other low-level, real-time, performance critical systems probably need to use quite a bit of maths and are closest to doing what we traditionally consider engineering. All those teams working on web app…
I refer to myself as a software developer, but also intensely dislike the gatekeeping around the term “engineer”.
I disagree, maybe if the software industry self regulated like more traditional forms of engineering such as mechanical and electrical, we could guarantee some minimal level of competency in the field and wouldn't have to resort to weeklong interview processes and hours and hours of leetcode and whiteboarding.
With all due respect, if your "engineering title" is preceded by the word salesforce or prompt, you're not an engineer.
Re: Ask HN: Is prompt engineering just snake oil?
#160Think of it more as "prompt-fu", akin to "google-fu"--or how to google. You do have to know how to talk to an LLM, and it will be important. But it's not so much engineering, as we come to think of it in software traditionally. I wouldn't get hung up on the name, but just see it for what it is--a bad name for something we'll need to learn to be effective. It won't go away entirely, but will be mitigated to be less im…
Next you're going to say social engineering isn't real engineering :P