81–90 of 166 posts
Isn’t engineering an exact science while prompt engineering is completely not? Although, even software engineering being an exact science, it is a funny one: most of us don’t get certified as like, let’s say, mechanical engineers do. Would they say we are engineers? So perhaps the “engineer” term got overloaded in recent years?
Off topic but Jupyter cells on GitHub can't display horizontally long content and it frustrates me a lot. This small piece of code for the browser console helps me see more content, but it only works in large displays. $("[data-type='ipynb']").style.width = '100%'
Isn’t engineering an exact science while prompt engineering is completely not? Although, even software engineering being an exact science, it is a funny one: most of us don’t get certified as like, let’s say, mechanical engineers do. Would they say we are engineers? So perhaps the “engineer” term got overloaded in recent years?
Prompt "engineering" is just writing prayers to forest faeries. Whilst BASIC/JavaScript/etc are all magic incantations to a child, a child will soon figure out there's underlaying logic, and learn the ability to reason about what code does, and what certain changes will do. With prompts, it's all faerie logic. There is nothing to learn, there are only magic incantations that change drastically if the model is updated…
However, even with formally composable languages like JavaScript, a semblance of unpredictability — akin to the "faerie logic" metaphor — still persists. Languages evolve over time; Python, for instance, with its various imports that constantly disrupt my code, serves as a good example. This is perhaps the reason behind the emergence of containers to ensure code consistency.
While some elements may be more "composable" than others, it appears increasingly unrealistic in today's world to encapsulate thought processes or interactions with systems within a rigid logical framework. Large Language Models (LLMs) will keep evolving and improving, making continual interaction with them unavoidable. The notion that we can pass a set of code or words through them once and expect a flawless result is simply illogical.
I firmly believe that any effective system should incorporate a robust user interaction component, regardless of the specific task or problem at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software engineer has always been a daft, grandiose term that seems aimed at prestige rather than reality in the majority of cases. If coders can call themselves engineers, no reason why anybody else solving puzzles for a living can't.
In my opinion, coding is a craft. As software has only existed for like 70 years, we are more like the guilds building cathedrals in the middle ages than like modern civil engineering. One day I think there will be true software engineering. When that happens you won't be able to start software projects without certifications, and most people (or programs!) who actually do the coding will be following careful plans a…
Sounds really bad.
Software can't fall on your head and kill you, not all of it at least.
Different software should require different professionals building it.
And it's usually not about the software but about the management telling the engineers to take shortcuts or whatever (Boeing comes to mind)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m guessing you aren’t from the US because in the US there is not much prestige in the title of engineer, but it seems to be a title people in Europe get weirdly hung up on. If anything, software engineering positions are more prestigious than most traditional engineering positions here.
I was a real engineer for a decade before switching to programming. I cannot use the word software engineer, since its nothing like real engineering. Real engineering was def harder, more math intense, and the stakes were sooo much higher. While many software problems can cause you to lose money, engineering problems can cause you to lose time. Yes it sucks your CAD designer had everything on a 0.05 degree angle and…
It's always been a demand thing, not a difficulty thing.
Isn’t engineering an exact science while prompt engineering is completely not? Although, even software engineering being an exact science, it is a funny one: most of us don’t get certified as like, let’s say, mechanical engineers do. Would they say we are engineers? So perhaps the “engineer” term got overloaded in recent years?
Software engineer has always been a daft, grandiose term that seems aimed at prestige rather than reality in the majority of cases. If coders can call themselves engineers, no reason why anybody else solving puzzles for a living can't.
Isn’t engineering an exact science while prompt engineering is completely not? Although, even software engineering being an exact science, it is a funny one: most of us don’t get certified as like, let’s say, mechanical engineers do. Would they say we are engineers? So perhaps the “engineer” term got overloaded in recent years?
I am a Software Engineer, I am certified (since in my country, they do so, just as with Mechanical Engineers). Still think it's overloaded though.
This tool doesn’t benchmark based on how a model actually responds to the generated prompts. Instead, it trusts GPT4 to rank prompts simply in terms of how well it imagines they will perform head-to-head. Thus, there’s no way to tell if the chosen ‘best prompt’ actually is the best, because there’s no ground truth against actual responses. Why is this so popular, then (more popular than promptfoo, which I think is a…
Grifters. I won't say that the person working on this is a grifter. Instead, it's so popular right now because of grifters. The same type of NFT grifters and crypto grifters who are mostly silent now. They've moved on.
How ethical would it be to sell things to these grifters, to sell the shovels they will use? But I'm always hung up on the idea that they will use those shovels on others and exploit them.
This tool doesn’t benchmark based on how a model actually responds to the generated prompts. Instead, it trusts GPT4 to rank prompts simply in terms of how well it imagines they will perform head-to-head. Thus, there’s no way to tell if the chosen ‘best prompt’ actually is the best, because there’s no ground truth against actual responses. Why is this so popular, then (more popular than promptfoo, which I think is a…
There is a paper on arxiv saying that GPT4 correlation with human evaluators on a variety of tasks with strongly positive. I am also uncomfortable with it, but using GPT4 as a grader is not as bad as you think.
Could you post the link please