4 ms·

>when you learn how to program it I don't know if you mean, like, LoRAs and similar (actual substantive changes), but the vast majority of "learning how to pro

>when you learn how to program it I don't know if you mean, like, LoRAs and similar (actual substantive changes), but the vast majority of "learning how to program" LLMs (accounting for the majority of startup pitches as well) is "prompt engineering" - which, as the meme goes, isn't a moat. There's a skill to it, yes, but if your singular advantage boils down to a few lines of English prose, your product isn't able to control a market - and VCs are (rightly) not interested unless you have the possibility to be a near-monopoly.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is the error of the thinking. It would be like saying software doesn't have a moat because thats just clever talking to a processor. But no one would say that now, thats ridiculous. There is a sufficient degree of prompt engineering that is already defensible, I'm already doing it myself IMO. You'll see very sophisticated hybrid programming/prompting systems being developed in the next year that will prove out the case. For example 30 parallel prompts that then amalgamate into a decision and an audit, with 10 simulation level prompts running chained afterwards to clean the output. These types of atomic configurations will become sufficiently complex to not be just for 'anybody'.
- __loam 3y ago
  The output of that many chained prompts is probably so unreliable that it's useless.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Again, this is a misunderstanding of what LLMs are capable of. These aren't chained, you can run parallel prompts of 15 personas with X diversity of perspective, that reason on a singular request, string, input or variable, they provide output plus audit explanation. You then run an amalgamation or committee decision (sort of like mixture of experts) on it to output variable or string. Then run parallel simulation or reflection prompts based on X different context personas to double check their application to outside cases, unconsidered context, etc. It's pretty effective on complex problems like Spam, Trust and Safety, etc. And the applications of these sort of reasoning atomic configurations I think are unlimited. It's not just 'talking fancy' to an AI, its building processes that systematically improve reasoning to different very hard applied problems.
    - ironborn123 3y ago
      Brave are those who have set out to make prompt engg an entire industry, with gpt-5 and gemini lurking on the horizon.
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        Sam has specifically stated it's unlikely there will be a GPT5, and likely GPT4 is just a deeply prompt optimized and multimode version of GPT3. But overall, hasn't that theme been true for like... all tech ever? You have to set up and build your own innovation path at some point.
        matmulbro 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - dlkf 3y ago
      > the applications of these sort of reasoning atomic configurations I think are unlimited They are limited to applications in which the latency slo is O(seconds), knowledge of 2021-present doesn’t matter, and you’re allowed to make things up when you don’t know the answer. There are, to be fair, many such applications. But it’s not unlimited.
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        Bounded =/= not unlimited
    - carlitossway 3y ago
      Interesting. Were you inspired by the Delphi decision algorithm, or did you happen to rediscover it? I agree it could provide a moat, though not a very wide one. All it takes is for your competition to talk to non-engineers, and all sorts of clever usages become possible. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method
      - 3y ago
svnt 3y ago
> I don't know if you mean, like, <extensions> and similar (actual substantive changes), but the vast majority of "learning how to program" <computers> (accounting for the majority of startup pitches as well) is "<punchcard> engineering" - which, as the meme goes, isn't a moat. There's a skill to it, yes, but if your singular advantage boils down to a few lines of <clever pointer dereferences>, your product isn't able to control a market - and VCs are (rightly) not interested unless you have the possibility to be a near-monopoly.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Ha I think you get it. The only moat is either user engagement, sales or sufficient sophistication of otherwise known techniques. There is not dark arts magic moat.
treprinum 3y ago
There is a lot of moat for intelligent people who leverage emerging properties of huge LLMs. I am not going to give you a hint but I already use those LLMs in unexpected ways that weren't possible before.

tsunamifury 3y ago

This is the error of the thinking. It would be like saying software doesn't have a moat because thats just clever talking to a processor. But no one would say that now, thats ridiculous. There is a sufficient degree of prompt engineering that is already defensible, I'm already doing it myself IMO. You'll see very sophisticated hybrid programming/prompting systems being developed in the next year that will prove out the case. For example 30 parallel prompts that then amalgamate into a decision and an audit, with 10 simulation level prompts running chained afterwards to clean the output. These types of atomic configurations will become sufficiently complex to not be just for 'anybody'.

__loam 3y ago
The output of that many chained prompts is probably so unreliable that it's useless.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Again, this is a misunderstanding of what LLMs are capable of. These aren't chained, you can run parallel prompts of 15 personas with X diversity of perspective, that reason on a singular request, string, input or variable, they provide output plus audit explanation. You then run an amalgamation or committee decision (sort of like mixture of experts) on it to output variable or string. Then run parallel simulation or reflection prompts based on X different context personas to double check their application to outside cases, unconsidered context, etc. It's pretty effective on complex problems like Spam, Trust and Safety, etc. And the applications of these sort of reasoning atomic configurations I think are unlimited. It's not just 'talking fancy' to an AI, its building processes that systematically improve reasoning to different very hard applied problems.
  - ironborn123 3y ago
    Brave are those who have set out to make prompt engg an entire industry, with gpt-5 and gemini lurking on the horizon.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      Sam has specifically stated it's unlikely there will be a GPT5, and likely GPT4 is just a deeply prompt optimized and multimode version of GPT3. But overall, hasn't that theme been true for like... all tech ever? You have to set up and build your own innovation path at some point.
      - matmulbro 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - dlkf 3y ago
    > the applications of these sort of reasoning atomic configurations I think are unlimited They are limited to applications in which the latency slo is O(seconds), knowledge of 2021-present doesn’t matter, and you’re allowed to make things up when you don’t know the answer. There are, to be fair, many such applications. But it’s not unlimited.
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      Bounded =/= not unlimited
  - carlitossway 3y ago
    Interesting. Were you inspired by the Delphi decision algorithm, or did you happen to rediscover it? I agree it could provide a moat, though not a very wide one. All it takes is for your competition to talk to non-engineers, and all sorts of clever usages become possible. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method
    - 3y ago

svnt 3y ago

> I don't know if you mean, like, <extensions> and similar (actual substantive changes), but the vast majority of "learning how to program" <computers> (accounting for the majority of startup pitches as well) is "<punchcard> engineering" - which, as the meme goes, isn't a moat. There's a skill to it, yes, but if your singular advantage boils down to a few lines of <clever pointer dereferences>, your product isn't able to control a market - and VCs are (rightly) not interested unless you have the possibility to be a near-monopoly.

tsunamifury 3y ago
Ha I think you get it. The only moat is either user engagement, sales or sufficient sophistication of otherwise known techniques. There is not dark arts magic moat.

treprinum 3y ago

There is a lot of moat for intelligent people who leverage emerging properties of huge LLMs. I am not going to give you a hint but I already use those LLMs in unexpected ways that weren't possible before.