3 ms·

Most people are already used to prompt engineering thanks to years of using Google. They just aren't fully conscious of that connection yet, as "prompt engineer

Most people are already used to prompt engineering thanks to years of using Google. They just aren't fully conscious of that connection yet, as "prompt engineering" sounds far more complex than it actually is. Also worth noting, prompt engineering is only "difficult" now because the UI is effectively non existent, it's just a text box. This too will improve, and prompt engineering will get easier. It's imperative it becomes easier from the perspective of AI providers. >That doesn't make it any less of a programming language I don't see how you can believe that. Prompt engineering will never require learning an entirely new method of communication because the entire point is to communicate in languages you already know to create generations. Just because someone writes "image barn sunny trees" doesn't mean it's incomprehensible to those who know English, definitely not in the same way that "public static void main()" is incomprehensible to those who do understand English but not Java (or it's similar). You might think "well, prompt engineering can turn out the same way that Java example does", but that negates the entire functionality of AI and you're now just programming!

chatmasta 4y ago
> Prompt engineering will never require learning an entirely new method of communication No, but it's not like every person in the world is a super competent communicator even in their own language. But I agree the number of competent natural language communicators is an order of magnitude larger than the number of competent programmers. So I do agree with minimaxir that supply will rapidly outstrip demand, and it's unlikely that "prompt engineering" (which is a ridiculously stupid title, btw, can we still change that?) will ever be more highly paid than "real" programming (or whatever is left of real programming, at least). Still, my point is mostly that we should be weary of making proclamations like this because it's not easy to predict how this field will develop, especially when you consider aspects like domain-specific expertise (e.g. lawyers will be in a better position than programmers to "prompt engineer" a legal contract), and the simultaneous replacement of existing jobs with AI. These factors will blend together to create a mix of incentives that makes it difficult to predict the end result. I don't think the Assembly/C/Python analogy is perfect, but it's not far off from the truth - we see a new technology ushering in a new wave of people proficient in it, and the temptation is to wave it away as unlikely to affect the status quo, but reality never ends up being so simple.
- waboremo 4y ago
  On the contrary, I was not suggesting it is unlikely to affect the status quo, I think prompt engineering will become so default it's as expected as "can work on a team". Status quo will change, but not in the "direct replacement" theory people are so scared of. I also don't believe that domain-specific expertise is the big exception here you believe it to be, as domain specific expertise is not gatekept in any efficient form. This will result in people being able to utilize such expertise just through AI - after all, you don't need to be an expert chef to know what a julienne technique is, just ask AI.

chatmasta 4y ago

> Prompt engineering will never require learning an entirely new method of communication No, but it's not like every person in the world is a super competent communicator even in their own language. But I agree the number of competent natural language communicators is an order of magnitude larger than the number of competent programmers. So I do agree with minimaxir that supply will rapidly outstrip demand, and it's unlikely that "prompt engineering" (which is a ridiculously stupid title, btw, can we still change that?) will ever be more highly paid than "real" programming (or whatever is left of real programming, at least). Still, my point is mostly that we should be weary of making proclamations like this because it's not easy to predict how this field will develop, especially when you consider aspects like domain-specific expertise (e.g. lawyers will be in a better position than programmers to "prompt engineer" a legal contract), and the simultaneous replacement of existing jobs with AI. These factors will blend together to create a mix of incentives that makes it difficult to predict the end result. I don't think the Assembly/C/Python analogy is perfect, but it's not far off from the truth - we see a new technology ushering in a new wave of people proficient in it, and the temptation is to wave it away as unlikely to affect the status quo, but reality never ends up being so simple.

waboremo 4y ago
On the contrary, I was not suggesting it is unlikely to affect the status quo, I think prompt engineering will become so default it's as expected as "can work on a team". Status quo will change, but not in the "direct replacement" theory people are so scared of. I also don't believe that domain-specific expertise is the big exception here you believe it to be, as domain specific expertise is not gatekept in any efficient form. This will result in people being able to utilize such expertise just through AI - after all, you don't need to be an expert chef to know what a julienne technique is, just ask AI.