5 ms·
But it really feels like I didn't improve my skills by doing it. The process of finding the right prompt to get the most out of the LLM is programming. You ar
by CamperBob2 2y ago
But it really feels like I didn't improve my skills by doing it.
The process of finding the right prompt to get the most out of the LLM is programming. You aren't doing anything different, you just switched languages.
- realce 2y agoAbstraction is the opposite of precision.
- rudy6912 2y agoAbstraction is the opposite of specialization, not precision. Multiplication, for example, is an abstraction that can be defined in terms of repeated addition of the same term, which is less general, and so more special, than addition of two arbitrary terms, but it not less precise.
- palata 2y agoNo, it is not. I can't hear that "prompt engineering" is engineering. The process is clearly shortened. I don't have to "go through the pain" of producing the code: it just pops up for free, and then I just have to tune it. It's the difference between writing a speech and proof-reading it. Or listening to a lot of music versus actually learning how to play an instrument. Because you can be critical about music does not mean at all that you can play an instrument.
- CamperBob2 2y agoSome of us are old enough to remember when we said the same thing about C compilers. "No thanks, I'll stick to assembly. I have no idea what that thing is actually doing with my code, but I know it sucks."
- palata 2y agoIf you can look at the past to predict the future, you should be a trader, not a developer. I.e. because it was wrong to say X in the past doesn't mean it's wrong to say Y today, even if you find some similarities. Doesn't mean it's true either. So let's ignore such worthless arguments and have a real discussion, shall we?
- CamperBob2 2y agoIt looks like we're both maintainers of open-source projects. If we had enough space and time, I'd share a support email exchange I just had with a user. I took a look at your other comments, and the one you made about an hour ago hits close to home, because in this case I was arguably the asshole. My summary below is already long-winded enough that most people will skip it, but you should read it. I'm the author of a package used for data acquisition from various bits and pieces of instrumentation hardware. It is used in some professional settings, but because it's a random collection of hacks, it's mostly useful to hobbyists with more free time than money. Retirees who are getting back into their old ham radio hobby, for example, like the guy I just (failed to) help. He was asking about how to adapt one of the larger programs in the package to a completely-different test instrument. Although he wasn't a programmer, and although my code is in C++, he had "heard good things about Python" and was wondering if he should install it on his Windows box and give it a try. I didn't give him the full LART treatment, but I was probably a bit more patronizing than I should have been. I said something like, "That's not even the wrong way to do it. Try feeding the .cpp file to ChatGPT and see if it will help you understand what you need to do to modify it." That was yesterday. This morning, I got an entirely undeserved thank-you note from him. He got a Python program back from ChatGPT, and after a few back-and-forth interactions, it actually worked, using code he couldn't read to communicate with an instrument I'd never heard of. He wasn't a programmer yesterday, but today he is one. His first language is not assembly or C or BASIC or Python, but English. This technology doesn't threaten people, it empowers them. It doesn't harm creativity, it enables it. I don't know about "worthless arguments," but my recommendation is that you change your outlook right fucking now if you intend to stay in the software business, or in the music business for that matter. You'll eventually thank me for the advice, and this time I'll deserve the gratitude.
- dartos 2y agoOkay, but this obviously isn’t the same as that. C compilers emit assembly as a direct result of the code written. The same compiler given the same code will output the same assembly. This would be true for LLMs if you set the temperature to 1 and fix the seed, but you lose the benefits of language models at that point. There are guarantees about the behavior of a compiler which can be verified by examining the code for the compiler. The same is not true for language models. They are statistically based all the way down.
- toasteros 2y agoThis very much sounds like you would consider asking a Subway employee for a sandwich to be 'cooking'...
- dartos 2y agoNo it isn’t. For so many reasons, it isn’t. What a wildly incorrect take. Here’s the most obvious reason why that isn’t the case: There is a direct cause effect relationship with the code you write and the resulting program. That is not so with prompting, obviously. Prompting is, therefore, not the same as programming.
- joe_the_user 2y agoPrompt engineering may be a highly skilled activity or even an art. But prompt engineering isn't programming because it doesn't allow aggregation. It's not the activity of building a system from reliable components. Prompts don't allow reliable recursion, etc. At best, it is simply a different but valid activity. But AI companies no doubt aim to remove the mystery from prompts in the fashion they aim to remove the mystery from programming.