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

Context engineering

chrisloy.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: Context engineering

#21

Post by timr »

simonw wrote: post #18
aeve890 wrote: post #7

Are we still calling this things engineering?

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

lol. who is “we”? I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious.

I’m going to start a second career in lottery “engineering”, since that’s a stochastic process too.

Re: Context engineering

#22

Post by scuff3d »

simonw wrote: post #18
aeve890 wrote: post #7

Are we still calling this things engineering?

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

Lol. This has to be a troll. No way someone seriously wrote this and meant it.

Re: Context engineering

#23

Post by cadamsdotcom »

simonw wrote: post #18
aeve890 wrote: post #7

Are we still calling this things engineering?

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

Yep. Consider woodworking - the wood you use might warp over time, or maybe part of it ends up in the sun or the thing you’ll make gets partly exposed to water.

Can you make a thing that’ll serve its purpose and look good for years under those constraints? A professional carpenter can.

We have it easy in software.

Re: Context engineering

#24

Post by mpalmer »

simonw wrote: post #18
aeve890 wrote: post #7

Are we still calling this things engineering?

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

Physical engineers might scoff good-naturedly at an attempt by project managers to refer to work scheduling as "logistics engineering".

But they really shouldn't because obviously scheduling and logistics is difficult, involving a lot of uncertainty and tolerances.

Re: Context engineering

#25

Post by timr »

calebkaiser wrote: post #14
aeve890 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say this shit is even worse that "good at googling". Literal incantation for stochastic machines is like just two notches above checking the horoscope.

Based on the comments, I expected this to be slop listing a bunch of random prompt snippets from the author's personal collection. I'm honestly a bit confused at the negativity here. The article is incredibly benign and reasonable. Maybe a bit surface level and not incredibly in depth, but at a glance, it gives fair and generally accurate summaries of the actual mechanisms behind inference. The examples it gives for…

There’s nothing particularly wrong with the article - it’s a superficial summary of stuff that has historically happened in the world of LLM context windows.

The problem is - and it’s a problem common to AI right now - you can’t generalize anything from it. The next thing that drives LLMs forward could be an extension of what you read about here, or it could be a totally random other thing. There are a million monkeys tapping on keyboards, and the hope is that someone taps out Shakespeare’s brain.

Re: Context engineering

#26

Post by timr »

mpalmer wrote: post #24
simonw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

Physical engineers might scoff good-naturedly at an attempt by project managers to refer to work scheduling as "logistics engineering". But they really shouldn't because obviously scheduling and logistics is difficult, involving a lot of uncertainty and tolerances.

Uncertainty and tolerance implies that you have a predictable distribution in the first place.

Engineers are not just dealing with a world of total chaos, observing the output of the chaos, and cargo culting incantations that seem to work for right now [1]…oh wait nevermind we’re doing a different thing today! Have you tried paying for a different tool, because all of the real engineers are using Qwghlm v5 Dystopic now?

There’s actually real engineering going on in the training and refining of these models, but I personally wouldn’t include the prompting fad of the week to fall under that umbrella.

[1] I hesitate to write that sentence because there was a period where, say, bridges and buildings were constructed in this manner. They fell down a lot, and eventually we made predictable, consistent theoretical models that guide actual engineering, as it is practiced today. Will LLM stuff eventually get there? Maybe! But right now we’re still plainly in the phase of trying random shit and seeing what falls down.

Re: Context engineering

#27

Post by simonw »

timr wrote: post #21
simonw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

lol. who is “we”? I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious. I’m going to start a second career in lottery “engineering”, since that’s a stochastic process too.

The "we" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the "we" in the original question:

> Are we still calling this things engineering?

Re: Context engineering

#28

Post by simonw »

scuff3d wrote: post #22
simonw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and we've also decided that they deserve the title "engineering" more than software engineering does. Most engineering disciplines have to deal with tolerances and uncertainty - the real world is non-deterministic. Software engineering is easy in comparison because computers always do exactly what you tell them to do. The ways LLMs fail (and the techniques you have to use to account for that) have more in common…

Lol. This has to be a troll. No way someone seriously wrote this and meant it.

Little bit of both.

Re: Context engineering

#30

Post by timr »

simonw wrote: post #27
timr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol. who is “we”? I honestly can’t tell if you’re being serious. I’m going to start a second career in lottery “engineering”, since that’s a stochastic process too.

The "we" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the "we" in the original question: > Are we still calling this things engineering?

Yeah, I understand the symmetry, but…it begs the question.
Post reply on HN