If you're choosing to control the means by which the model may be evaluated, you're already doing much more than OpenAI themselves are doing, and infinitely les

If you're choosing to control the means by which the model may be evaluated, you're already doing much more than OpenAI themselves are doing, and infinitely less than early-accessors are doing. Even so, you seem to be saying that because it is possible to write a program that gets output one might consider "correct," the fact that how to write that program is non-obvious should be ignored. If your purpose is to suggest that GPT-3 performs well under precisely-controlled conditions when one wraps an antennae in aluminum foil and stands on one leg with one's left arm held just so, then well done. But "good prompt design" seems like approaching the problem from the wrong way around. Are we trying to "poke holes" in GPT-3 to determine how to make it better, or do we need to change ourselves until we believe that GPT-3 is good enough?