Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of the AI Engineer

latent.space

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#31

Hey Shawn! Always enjoy your writing. I think you've done well laying out what a lot of people want "AI Engineer" to mean at this moment in time. My concern (coming fresh out of the absolute semantic nightmare that was the "serverless" community) is that the term AI is so hopelessly overloaded, and has been such a moving target over the years, that it's unlikely that a plurality of people will ever share your mental…

hey Forrest! thanks so much!

agree with the semantic overload risk, but i think at this point Worse is Better is applying here. like I said in the piece I'm not starting the trend, just calling out that it's already under way.

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#32
I still feel a bit strange about calling someone an “AI engineer” and I think there are a few reasons.

1. AI is poorly defined. This is a fundamental problem behind almost every conversation on the “topic”. Depending on the context, AI can mean anything from a decision tree to deep neural networks to science fiction.

2. Engineering implies a deeper level of understanding. If you want to engineer a system, you need a deeper understanding of how each of the components work. Using a tool does not make one a tool engineer. It makes them a 21st century blacksmith. Does calling an LLM API make me an AI engineer? If so, calling a weather API makes me a weatherman.

3. This is a relatively new area, and make no mistake, it is a new area. 2 years ago most of the tooling around ML work meant you had to get your hands dirty. To use BERT, you pretty much needed to learn about tokenization and attention masks and CUDA. Not so much with GPT3. So it seems premature to even circumscribe at the moment.

What I am not saying: I don’t think one needs to take a class in linear algebra to work with this stuff. I also never believed in calculus for CS students, which may be a minority opinion too.

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#33

I'm a natural skeptic, and I believe we're still on the rising edge of the "AI" hype cycle. Five years ago, it was "blockchain", and everyone was trying to ram blockchain into everything, attracting lots of VC and media attention, etc. It seems that blockchain is beyond the honeymoon phase: I haven't seen an NFT or even a Bitcoin headline in HN for a while. So I'm trying to wrap my head around what an "AI Engineer" i…

AI Engineer here.

To start with, I share some of your skepticism about AI and hype (but I love these problems, so I'm happy to take the risk of overhyping to try to solve these challenges). But there is a lot of real work going on in this space. Though most of these are basically the same answers as you'd get in the article.

> it's all about calling a function that takes some text as an input, and getting some text as output.

Real world AI applications involve non-trivial prompts that are often composed of many different components and dynamically changed based on user interaction with the environment. So it's not quite as simple in practice as just calling an API.

> So is the "engineering" part of this finessing the input and massaging the output?

You could make this claim about all software engineering at the end of the day.

If you want to understand whether or not any of the billion companies shipping "AI" products right now are really doing AI, the big term to ask about is "evaluations". It is not trivial to evaluate the performance of LLM output across a broad range of tasks. However if you're not doing this, then you can't possibly know how your efforts are doing. The companies that are slapping "AI" stickers on old products are largely ignoring this issue.

The next challenge is "how do you improve bad outputs?" Prompt engineering is one solution, but there are potentially may other engineering solutions to recovering from a bad state. None of these are trivial.

A rapidly growing part of this space is working with "agents", that is you have multiple LLMs that are capable of interacting with each other. This area is changing rapidly.

Vector databases are also becoming very important of the work as not all LLM/AI work is just throwing around prompts, but often working with embeddings.

> All of a sudden, everyone's an AI Engineer. Where where these experts hiding five years ago?

It's not that mysterious. Everyone I know working in this space right now was either a very engineering focused data scientist in their last role, or an ML engineer working near this space. In either case they're people that have been interested in this space before that have all the skills necessary to change roles.

> Can the same be said of "AI Engineers"?

At least in my circle, everyone doing this work right now has a long history of working in machine learning and quantitative problem solving. Of course that used to be true of ML engineers as well (and I've not far to many MLEs that don't understand gradient descent).

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#34

Hey Shawn! Always enjoy your writing. I think you've done well laying out what a lot of people want "AI Engineer" to mean at this moment in time. My concern (coming fresh out of the absolute semantic nightmare that was the "serverless" community) is that the term AI is so hopelessly overloaded, and has been such a moving target over the years, that it's unlikely that a plurality of people will ever share your mental…

Hmm, I think "the professional practice of building stuff with AI as your pair programmer" is just "software engineering". That is, it's just one more tool to use to do the existing work. We never had "Search Engineering" or "StackOverflow Engineering" to describe the practice of building stuff using web search and stack overflow as tools...

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#36

I still feel a bit strange about calling someone an “AI engineer” and I think there are a few reasons. 1. AI is poorly defined . This is a fundamental problem behind almost every conversation on the “topic”. Depending on the context, AI can mean anything from a decision tree to deep neural networks to science fiction. 2. Engineering implies a deeper level of understanding. If you want to engineer a system, you need a…

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#37

I'm a natural skeptic, and I believe we're still on the rising edge of the "AI" hype cycle. Five years ago, it was "blockchain", and everyone was trying to ram blockchain into everything, attracting lots of VC and media attention, etc. It seems that blockchain is beyond the honeymoon phase: I haven't seen an NFT or even a Bitcoin headline in HN for a while. So I'm trying to wrap my head around what an "AI Engineer" i…

> Where where these experts hiding five years ago?

I'll bet that many of them were trying to ram blockchain into everything!

Personally, I'm curiously watching emerging prompt pen testing scene. It brings a tear of cyberpunk joy to my eye to consider that we've built important, powerful systems advanced enough to be vulnerable to social engineering attacks... and pretty dumb ones, too.

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#38
post #14

I can see a world where "ML Engineer" (or similar) is someone that's hired to solve a known problem (whether it be with classifiers, LLMs, neural nets, etc), whereas a "AI Engineer" (or whatever the title) is hired to figure out how the hell to capitalize on the AI hype, without a specific problem to solve. IMO right now we're entering the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" in Gartner's hype cycle model. https://en.wiki…

We are indeed at the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" in the Garter hype cycle. Everyone is screaming that we are out of the AI winter and throwing LLMs at every problem.

> What the LLM community needs now is for companies to leverage and productize these LLM models for truly game changing use cases.

The killer serious use-case has always been summarization of existing text. That's it. Everything else is a constant flow of creative bull-shitting from a black box AI requiring triple checking everything before using the output, meaning that the output can't be trusted.

> If that doesn't happen soon, the hype will start to fade and lose momentum ("trough of disillusionment").

I think they will realize that there is more to "AI" than LLMs, just like the hype with CNNs and the like.

Re: The Rise of the AI Engineer

#40

I'm a natural skeptic, and I believe we're still on the rising edge of the "AI" hype cycle. Five years ago, it was "blockchain", and everyone was trying to ram blockchain into everything, attracting lots of VC and media attention, etc. It seems that blockchain is beyond the honeymoon phase: I haven't seen an NFT or even a Bitcoin headline in HN for a while. So I'm trying to wrap my head around what an "AI Engineer" i…

It really wasn't blockchain 5 years ago.

It was blockchain 6 years ago (though to a much lesser degree, and focused on different iterations of the distributed ledger idea). Then it was really blockchain 2 years ago (but focused on protocols built on smart-contract-enabled blockchains).

Interestingly, those two targets are completely different. 6 years ago the application was the ledger, and the language was usually C, 2 years ago the application was "a financial product built to run on a resource-constrained virtual machine that executes a custom language (or Rust)".

The demand follows the money, so if the whole space experiences another "bull run" there will be lots of demand for "blockchain" again, and I'm sure the actual associated skills expected will be different as well

Post reply on HN