4 ms·
I disagree because when I want to get results from flesh-and-blood humans, I still have to engineer my prompt very carefully (and often get it wrong!). This in
by jlawson 4y ago
I disagree because when I want to get results from flesh-and-blood humans, I still have to engineer my prompt very carefully (and often get it wrong!).
This includes asking questions, and trying to direct someone to effectively complete a task.
Prompt engineering is just communications skills as applied to AI instead of meat-minds.
- smoe 4y agoI think as of now one big difference is that when talking to a competent flesh and blood human, they will ask (or at least try) the right questions before giving an answer. E.g when talking with my accountant, she usually ask me a bunch of clarification questions and numbers, instead of just making a best effort, but confident sounding response with whatever initial context i gave. I myself don’t have to have the depth of knowledge to direct someone to complete a task step by step to get the right results.
- jlawson 4y agoVery interesting point. Perhaps a big step forward for chat AI interfaces is to make the AI capable of knowing when it needs to ask follow-up questions and then having it do so. Essentially, it helps you along with your prompt engineering. Perhaps this is what the prompt engineering tools are doing anyway. What we need to do is integrate the prompt engineering tools with the chatbot itself, so it can both help extract a good prompt from users and then answer that prompt in the same process. I think this is where we'll move towards relatively soon; it seems obvious when you say it.
- williamcotton 4y agoIf anything, we're all learning pretty quickly that a chatbot interface is probably not the ideal way for interacting with an LLM!