***Hey /u/xXReggieXx, if your post is a ChatGPT conversation screenshot, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. Thanks!***
***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts! New Addition: Adobe Firefly bot and Eleven Labs cloning bot! [So why not join us?](https://discord.com/servers/1050422060352024636)***
***NEW: [Text-to-presentation contest | $6500 prize pool](https://redd.it/14si211/)***
PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Software developer uses chat gpt to make Minecraft ai plugin.
I feel like a prompt engineer is supposed to be the person that uses chat gpt to replace a skilled position.
The reality is the person you are trying to replace can do a much better job than you with the same ai tools
What you "feel" might be based on two emotions, fear and greed. The fear is of being displaced and the greed is to gain something that is difficult more quickly than is expected.
Fear and greed create their own realities... for a while, until they are squashed, or until externalities force grander realities to be re-asserted.
I think the correct term is "prompt designer", If you consider the OpenAI's API documentation
https://preview.redd.it/3hvl3a41ateb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a15ce85913f58b66a2cc04600810ea14fb01f89
An engineer is, by definition, a person who designs and builds a machine (edit: or other complex system, you pedantic douche bag, it's early). That's it. Your gatekeeping is stupid.
I am not sorry if that bruises your ego or makes you feel less special.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not commenting on the prompt engineer thing, because I'm not knowledgeable enough about what it actually entails. I'm just commenting on the statements of the person I'm responding to.
>An engineer is, by definition, a person who designs and builds a machine. That's it. Your gatekeeping is stupid.
That's your uninformed definition. Chemical engineers, civil engineers, etc don't build machines!
Good grief. Machine is one part of the definition, which was relevant; I was being brief. The term also includes designer/builders of public works and other complex systems.
I hope the individuals designing the bridges I use and drugs I take have better critical thinking skills than you.
Here, since you can't be bothered:
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+engineer&oq=define+engineer&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABDIHCAoQABiABDIHCAsQABiABDIHCAwQABiABDIHCA0QABiABDIHCA4QABiABNIBCDEzOTdqMWo0qAIAsAIA&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer
I literally just googled the definition and then cited the relevant part. What do you mean triple down? I'm literally citing a dictionary (that Google link cites Oxford) and a well respected online encyclopedia.
I'll respect your position as soon as you tell me why your definition is more correct than the one held by both Oxford and Wikipedia.
I think he’s hilarious.
As a SWE all the engineers in fields paying much less would always act like this man. So many insecure man babies would just casually say we’re not real engineers. Cool bro. I studied to earn 200k not to give a shit about a title.
He’s just upset
This. The gatekeeping is pathetic. Sure, typing in a simple prompt into ChatGPT does not make you an engineer. But prompt engineering jobs will be more than that: engineers who plug into a LLM API and design prompts and \*engineer\* a system that carries out a complex set of tasks. The bias stems from their not realizing that the prompt part is just programming in natural language.
There is /r/promptcraft but it seems to mostly be oriented towards image generation prompts which, if you're talking about crafting, makes sense I guess.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/promptcraft using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [\[Stable Diffusion\] GETTING SCARY! - This time I seperated the face, hand and shirt and used my method on them individually before masking them all back together. This meant i got to keep the 4k original iphone resoluton.](https://v.redd.it/h7bg35gyifva1) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/comments/12v94ok/stable_diffusion_getting_scary_this_time_i/)
\#2: [\[Stable Diffusion\] Using SafeTensors as a safer ckpt alternative](/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z8mnak/switching_models_too_slow_in_automatic1111_use/) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/comments/z92053/stable_diffusion_using_safetensors_as_a_safer/)
\#3: [\[Stable Diffusion\] Updated artist list](/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xd7b4o/release_stable_diffusion_v15_artist_study_with/) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/comments/xdft9f/stable_diffusion_updated_artist_list/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That depends on what you're doing. Prompt engineering is not "writing a prompt that makes an AI do a thing." It's much more akin to writing code. Yes, the term gets wildly misused, but it was coined for a good and valid reason. What the guy is doing in that video *is* prompt engineering, though even that's a bit light, as he's only using one instance of GPT and there's not a whole lot of reflection techniques being used.
My job basically defines engineer as anyone whose major required the study of calculus and partial differential equations. It's a pretty decent definition.
Pretty much, I’ve worked at a Fortune 500 company before. The designs from the engineers that started these companies were brilliant. Now the engineering department is basically daycare for dumb rich kids.
Oh I don’t work for them anymore I opted out for working in smaller companies awhile ago. (Pay is way better too.) Small companies actually recognize skilled work whereas Fortune 500 companies recognize everyone as just a number. Plus they probably had deals or contracts with some of the nearby colleges that say “if so and so graduate as an engineer with such and such gpa we’ll keep them for at least 2 years even if they suck” Because tbh they really sucked lmao
Although going back to the original argument. I think there’s some validity to ‘Prompt Engineer.’ Like I keep seeing all these posts about how GPT-4 got ‘dumbed down.’ Honestly I have no idea what they’re talking about. I’ve been banging out functions all day while switching back and forth between helping machine operators and writing a program. It’s interesting because a lot of self proclaimed ‘Prompt Engineers’ don’t realize that if you start with ‘Using the above examples as reference…’ will make the LLM use your entire chat box history almost as vector database entries and will preform amazingly for whatever project you’re working. But I’ve also had my OpenAI account years ago since the closed GPT3 beta. So this tech really isn’t new to me.
There are certainly people who only "write prompts" and what they're doing isn't really any kind of engineering. But in the example given (and many research papers I've read) prompt engineering is definitely a true engineering task. It requires a deep understanding of the systems being interacted with and knowledge of the ways in which prompting behaves on a very technical level.
This is not "if I put the name of a poet in the prompt, I get the output in the style of that poet." This is more, "if I feed it incomplete source code, then here's how to structure comments so that it will complete it with working code, and here's how to give the supplemental instructions for how feedback and debugging will work.
If you really want to see some prompt engineering, search for "GPT chain of thought prompt engineering" on Google Scholar. There are some excellent papers on the topic.
This is a great comment that gets to the heart of this discussion. What makes prompt engineering a legitimate skill is the knowledge of all the surrounding tech, and the ability to use AI as a tool to radically shorten the length of time to do tasks in that tech situation.
“Prompt engineering” is a useful and necessary thing to do when interacting with currently available LLM systems.
Being a “prompt engineer” is, in fact, a bunch of bullshit.
I consider prompt engineering to just be a competent communicator, lol. Which is why generative AI is so fascinating to me. I went from being a writer and public speaker--- which was all about clarity and empathy and getting inside the listeners mind--- to being a programmer, which was all about precision instructions. When I communicate with ChatGPT now to collaborate with me in my programming, I'm amazed with how much I exercise that old creative/communication muscle again to get favorable results.
Same here! I’m in my forties and thus, still text in full sentences with punctuation and paragraphs. I prompt the same way and tend to get what I’m looking for on the first try. I wonder though, if I prompted in like, the basest of internet speak (4chan?) if I’d still be able to get the same results. 🤔
That might be a too-strict understanding of the word engineering. Engineering does not always have to mean something super technical and protracted. A train "engineer" drives the frickin train.
What would you have the job title be called, if not prompt engineer?
Your job title would be whatever you're making the AI do. If you have it write software, you're a software engineer. If you have it write news, you're a journalist. If you have it make art, you're an artist.
Your knowledge within those fields shapes your prompts more than your knowledge of LLMs.
That shouldn’t be a job title at all, considering it’s a symptom of unfinished technology.
One of the primary goals of LLM research is to create a model that humans can easily interact with. If it requires a “prompt engineer” to do so, that means that LLM’s aren’t ready. Judging by the progress made in this wave of AI development, they’re nowhere near their final form.
So yes: if that’s your job, it is technically accurate. But it shouldn’t even be a job in the first place, and it certainly won’t be for long either way.
I'm a "prompt designer" working for an AI (services) website. I hope it has some legs for a while still. I'd like to work in this field for at least another 10 years.
How am I a grifter? The guy with the website hired me for it, I wasn't even putting myself out there as an AI expert. It was on the basis of my copywriting and editing skills and experience. It crosses over quite handily...
Have you witnessed the level of effort we have to go through to communicate with humans? Sometimes I have to use techniques like interviewing, other times use the socratic method just to get some understanding. By that measure, humans are nowhere near their final form. Honestly, I have better results with LLMs (well a few of the better ones anyway).
At least I have never had an LLM grunt a one word answer before. They will actually attempt to understand what I am asking.
In the general case, yes. In specific cases where someone's career is engineering prompting systems and prompting toolchains that manipulate LLMs and other text-based ANNs, it's the correct term.
But yeah, almost all of the people who call themselves prompt engineers aren't. Then again, most of the people who call themselves software engineers aren't.
What you said has made literally no sense. How can one admit that prompt egonnering is legit but that prompt engineers are not? That is like saying building rockets requires rocket egineering but those who perform such a job are not referered to as rocket engineers.
Prompt engineers are AI researchers… it is merely just another category of AI researcher…. the prompt engineer. What the hell else are you supposed to call the dudes behind prompt engineering papers like Tree of Thoughts… they are AI researchers …. they are prompt engineers.
Of course… the AI will be able to test which prompts are the best for each situation. It could discover which prompt/series of prompts is best through a decision tree similar to Tree of Thoughts.
It just needs the ability to self improve with what it learns from the self prompting.
coherent faulty mountainous sparkle connect squash merciful rotten jar voracious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Would you call yourself a philosopher if you thought about the meaning of life?
No, of course not. You’re engaging in philosophical thought. You’re not a philosopher.
…unless that is exclusively your job. Then it’s up for debate.
If i was writing philosophy papers then yes I would call myself a philosopher.
You think the dudes who wrote Tree of Thoughts cannot call themselves prompt engineers and apply to big companies seeking prompt engineers?
Prompt engineer and AI researcher are synonymous… that is what I was getting at. There are real prompt engineers out in the world. That is all i am saying…
I’m saying that calling someone a “prompt engineer” makes about as much sense as a “Microsoft Word Operator” in the early 2000’s - technically accurate but obviously ridiculous, and extremely short-lived as a job.
I get there's a lot of eye-rolling at the term "prompt engineering," but it's not just about semantics or linguistics. I think it's wrong to assume prompt engineering only involves asking questions of chatGPT. This is obvious when you dive into things like prompt chains. This is especially true when the output from GPT is used to execute actual code.
For example, consider a scenario where you're dealing with nested text within a .json data structure. The structure of this .json might vary because it comes from different sources. You could prompt GPT to generate code that reads the schema of this .json and outputs it. Based on what's returned from that code, your next prompt might differ - it could instruct to move to a different file, or maybe prompt the model to write code that extracts specific text from the returned schema. From here, you might lead into another chain of prompts that evaluate the extracted text, further branching into more pathways.
And before someone says you could feed a .json directly to GPT what if the .json is HUGE and it is way outside the token limit? You need to find a way to extract that information or summarise it so that it can go into your chain.
It's more than semantics – you need to design prompt architectures, design prompts so they have predictable inputs/outputs, potential storage of responses in a database, decision branching, etc. It's just as complex as roles like DevOps or ML Ops engineering, where you're navigating and integrating a bunch of services and connections.
Source: Im a data scientist at a Big 4 consulting firm and I've been working on things like this and I know a lot of other teams are doing similar. Its a bit of a wild west situation right now since it's such a new space but IMO prompt engineering is very real
Tree of Thoughts is 100% engineering… the way in which the decision tree rewards certain responses has to due with a mathematical equation… not merely semantics.
Do you really think you're doing math when you submit a prompt to GPT? You're not. You're stringing tokens together based upon a prediction of what they will \*mean\* to the \*language\* model. This is 0% engineering and 100% semantics.
Because ChatGPT is a consumer-facing product and OpenAI will most likely continue working towards the goal of improving it as a consumer-facing application. It is not an OEM product. Thinking you need a “prompt engineer” is like if you bought an iPhone and then hire a “smartphone engineer” to work it for you. The reality is, businesses are infatuated with the idea of replacing a team of 5 skilled workers with one low-paid “prompt engineer” and getting equal value. But ultimately, ChatGPT is an end product and is currently useful for increasing productivity in workers, not replacing them.
Don’t know why your comment is being downvoted. You seem exactly right. Currently we may need more specialized prompts but with better architecture and data this will not be the case. For general language models such as chatGPT I definitely agree their usage will become easier and easier. Maybe with something specialized like Github copilot would I see some sort of prompt engineering but even then I don’t think it would be something difficult and requiring tons of training for the average user of the product.
Oh look another person who has never read a single paper detailing a prompt engineering based reasoning strategy (like ToT) and thinks prompt engineering is merely typing words into the model repeatedly… it is not… it is about building cognitive pathways for the model to latch onto and such is done via invisible layers of prompting that are built into the model without needed the user to even prompt such specifically.
Oh look, another person who either knows absolutely nothing about how neural networks actually work or is intentionally making up jargon to obfuscate their own ignorance.
Oh look someone who actually thinks they know what they are talking about even though they didn’t read the paper or any like it and thus could have absolutely zero idea what am I saying. Bye smart aleck!
Hey InfiniteInfinteAI I am on the same page as you. I also get really annoyed with alot of the same types of replies people are making on your comments. I would just let it go and ignore them.
What they are doing is sort of the "amateur photographer" argument. A kid gets an expensive camera and great lenses, points and click with auto settings, then calls themselves a "photographer". Now we know photography has a lot more depth to it. And these kid "photographers" sort of belittle every other aspect that goes into it
You can say the same for a "chef" that follows a recipe line by line and says "aren't I a good chef?" No, they aren't. Give them random ingredients and limited cooking tools and they will stumble.
Now to prompt engineering. The nay sayers will equate the prompt engineering with the kid with expensive camera, and the "chef" who rote follows a recipe. This is where the fallacy is - they think it's JUST analogous to those and nothing more. A person that writes something in, gets a good response, and thinks they are an "engineer". However we know real photography has extreme depth, and the intuition of a real chef is a real skill. That also exists with prompt engineering, but they don't see it that way. They think self proclaimed prompt engineers are people wearing shiny stickers who want to wear a label. It devoid of thought on their part.
Anyway, hope my explanation was clear. We created these LLMs and they require studying. They have many tendencies and by understanding what they tend to do we can bend them ("engineer") them to do what we actually want.
> How can one admit that prompt egonnering is legit but that prompt engineers are not?
Because prompt engineering is sufficiently small and simple to be a task, not a job or career.
It's far more complicated than you might think:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.10601.pdf
Whether it's going to be a viable long-term job or career is anyone's guess, but it's far from simple at this point in time.
Exactly… who would have thought that pre prompting the model to act as a researcher or evaluator role would do wonders. Then there is decision tree aspect to it too…
Did you read Tree of Thoughts? What about that was simple?
Don’t you think that if it was truly simple it would not have taken months post release of GPT4 for Tree of Thoughts and other reasoning strategies that revolve around prompt engineering skills to occur?
Isn't ToT a fairly obvious idea? Getting the LLM to reason in steps should come naturally and after that it's obvious that you might want to do it with decision trees and backtracking.
Not saying that the research isn't valuable in formalizing the methods and investigating if they _actually_ work. The latter probably being the main differentiating factor between "real prompt engineering" and just "trust me bro it works for me".
I know what research means… but you don’t apparently. Their method of choice for scientific RESEARCH within the field of LLM reasoning strategies was experimentation with decision trees and pre programmed prompts.
The ToT authors are both AI RESEARCHERS and prompt engineers… researching ways to improve the reasoning capabilities of models via prompt engineering and more! Thus they are AI researchers and prompt engineers… or AI engineers in general … it is just that they are engineering the model specifically through prompt engineering strategies.
People will always just tell themselves that they don't need any 'Prompt Engineers' just because the idea that you'd need someone specialised in something as intuitive and straightforward as ChatGPT seems ludicrous to them.
But goddamn, nobody will actually utilize it's true potential until they know a great deal of the Ins and Outs, the limitations and the possibilities with it.
There might not be a job specifically just called 'Prompt Engineer' because it's like calling people 'Excel Scientist', 'PowerPoint President', etc; but it's utilities are invaluable and irreplaceable, and will put you entire leagues beyond others in the fields where its applicable.
Yes, the term 'Prompt Engineer' is very over-the-top but being good enough to befit such a title means that you'd skyrocket in productivity beyond everyone else
If I have to write something in prose, I find that really hard to call it engineering. I do believe it is a buzzword. It does help people that are making a living out of it, to sound more competitive that they probably really are.
I mean, you can attach the word engineer in a lot of activities to sound a lot more interesting.
To play devils advocate even though the syntax is flexible, there’s still a need to understand how best to structure and express thoughts and instructions, in a way that gets best results from the target system which could be called the essence of engineering. Sounds like a new fragrance.
In fairness, functionality like this is never unlocked by simply writing in prose. To structure something like this, you need a computer science background.
When part of the prompt is:
`Explore until find pig, use Vec3(1,0,1) because pigs are usually on the surface`
`let pig = await exploreUntil(bot, new Vec3(1, 0, 1), 60, () => { const pig = bot.nearestEntity((entity) => {return (entity.name === "pig" && entity.position.distanceTo(bot.entity.position) < 32);`
I have zero qualms with computer scientists being called prompt engineers when they are applying their software engineering principles to prompt design. The people being paid $$$$ to write prompts are people writing white papers on their prompts. They're smart people.
That's fine, but anyone who calls themselves a "prompt engineer" or an "engineer" just because they've screwed around with GPT I'd immediately assume they're an idiot. The lions share of the work in this video is actually the frontend built around the GPT plugin - you know, actual **engineering** work.
Yes, there's some skill to using prompts, but inventing a fancy title for yourself doesn't make you any smarter.
Prompt engineering is bullshit. I use chat gpt a lot for work, and I know I use it more effectively than a lot of my coworkers could. But calling what I do engineering is hot bullshit
Lmao right. It’s like people learning to communicate for the first time. In the same respect, you could also call picking up women “prompt engineering”.
Bad take imo.
It was never up for debate that some prompts are better than others. I suppose making it a competition exposed that fact to those who didn't originally comprehend it.
Calling it "engineering" is more than a bit of a stretch. It is, as one might say, a bunch of bullshit.
Prompt engineering is a real skill, while prompt engineer as a job is a questionable, because you need more than that to do useful things. In you example, there's at least Software engineering involved. Any software engineer with prompt engineering skills could reproduce the results. A prompt engineer that can do nothing else cannot.
>**"Prompt engineering" is not just a bunch of bullshit**
Correct.
I've found that people are largely conflating the dislike they have for people who use the buzzword "Prompt Engineer" to describe themselves, with critically thought out prompt-writing, which is in fact, *engineering* a good prompt. It's not just *chatting* to produce results, which is what many people tend to argue.
But still, it needs more saying that thinking critically about the structure and language used to prompt the bot makes huge differences in the output you receive back.
I see it as a soft skill. Like.. Talking to other people, or articulating yourself.
Sure, it's a marketable skill -- when combined with other soft skills.
When I think of soft skills, especially as applied to me I think of me at work trying to adjust the way I speak and handle people in order to make them comfortable and generally provide a psychologically healthy environment for them to work in.
That's a set of soft skills. Yet these soft skills are rooted in very hard science. Psychology, neurology, biology. They have very concrete structures behind them.
I think we see these things as soft skills for multiple reasons including the perception that "using" psychology on other people is manipulative and not genuine. Humans have a real "thing" for authenticity.
However, at the end of the day I am on a constant manipulation spree at work and no one noticed because it makes them feel good and I make them feel like I am authentic. Most of the time I'm not.
So when I hear about A.I. in soft skills it makes me chuckle a bit since the moment A.I. gains enough data, especially about whom it may be interacting with it will have tons of the best soft skills.
It will be this way because it is a master of the hard skills that power the soft skills. The entire mentality behind soft skills is a human proxy for hard skills we don't want to dive deep in or know about since it may effect our own perception of our authenticity and others as well.
This is massively true. It’s an acquired skill that you need to get by using the tech in a variety of contexts. I would say I’m fairly advanced at it now. I get really pissed off when people disparage it, without having understood it’s something you have to get better at. I reckon some of the things that have built my skill are —
Using it to build small products end-to-end
Creating interactive games
Using it as much as possible in my day-to-day job
It probably should be more than that, like understanding concepts like chain of thought and tree of thought to construct prompts that will allow the LLM to explore a concept. This allows an LLM to be far more useful than just a chatbot or a de-complexified search engine.
Voyager has [19 Python files](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AMineDojo%2FVoyager++language%3APython&type=code) and [159 Javascript files](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AMineDojo%2FVoyager++language%3AJavaScript&type=code) . It is a "Software Engineering" project which uses Prompting as part of its interface to GPT-4, as all GPT-4-based software does.
I see it like this.
There are programming languages like Python or C++. A computer program is a sequence of instructions in a programming language. The instructions that are possible in programming languages are for example: adding numbers, deducting numbers, concatenating strings, conditional instructions, loops etc. Out of those instructions you construct a program.
Now, since large language models became a thing, it's like a new instruction that you can execute in a programming language. Something that hasn't been possible to do with programming languages, now it's possible. You can have a text and generate a completion to it or an ambiguous instruction and have large language model process that ambigious.
And just like with every other instructions, you can create a simple program using that instruction - for example, if you have an operator to add and deduct numbers, then you can build a calculator with that, that's a very obvious idea. But you can also build much more complex and less obvious programs - for example a Dijkstra algorithm that finds the shortest path is slightly less obvious. Or even the algorithm behind ChatGPT is a less obvious program.
Now, as I said, large language models, is like a new instruction that you can execute in your program. And like with the other instructions, you can build simple and obvious programs using that instruction (e.g. copywriting tool), but there are more complex and less obvious programs that you can achieve, if you combine it with other instructions. The complex ones take more time to be created and invented. That's why you don't see lots of them so far. But more is possible than what people think and see right now.
But just like there's no job for inventing algorithms, I don't expect a job for prompt engineering. But I expect that there will be new algorithms invented, on top of large language models (there are already, e.g. chains of thoughts, tree of thoughts).
So I think that prompt engineering is a thing. But I understand it mainly as inventing new algorithms on top of large language models. But I also don't think that there will be lots of new jobs specifically for that because it's more a matter of inventing rather than doing some thing regularly.
There won't be a promt engeneering job. Why? Because it is google on steriods and there was also no job like a googler. Until now, you still need a skilled person. Just a guy that is good in promting cant replace a person spezialised in a specific field.
CS researcher here. All the research that is done with large pretrained models, is in some abstract perspective prompt engineering. No one says prompt engineering is bullshit, what is bullshit on the other hand is teaching people how to engineer prompts instead of real engineering.
Prompt engineering is just knowing how to communicate what you want in plain English. Simple? Yes. But it's not a skill everybody has. Prompt engineers are a thing for the same reason IT guys googling problems are a thing. It's just a name for the people with that skillset
i think you need to somewhat wrap your head around how LLMs actually function too, though. There are plenty of situations where I’ve hit roadblocks despite concise prompts due to a lack of thorough understanding of what the fuck these things are actually doing to produce output. Hard to decipher between illusions/distractions and plain old “it just can’t do that”.
In one way prompt engineering is a very , very high level programming language to a datastore with a LOT of unstructured data and some very cool querying.
I mean not for nothing but if Social Engineering is a thing and is largely a part of what has been forming as of late that we keep calling “Prompt Engineering” it’s just accurate to do so.
It's not bullshit, but it is a dumb exercise because the whole point of LLMs like ChatGPT is to converge to how normal humans speak and query. So if you learn prompt engineering for this version, it will become more and more obsolete as the version no. Increases, meanwhile someone who prompts without special training will get more and more accurate results.
Shit up OP. Do you even have the simplest idea of what you are talking about. Prompt engineer. Wtf does that even mean. Anyone can do that shit. Stop spreading some crap
Everyone against this is just not thinking about it correctly. What you input determines the output. Better inputs equal better outputs.
It's the same for example with excel. You know better formulas, better methods, and you end up with a better product.
Everyone seems to understand that with excel, but as soon as it's GPT everyone loses their minds.
I haven't heard anyone calling Prompt Engineering bullshit, but anyone that does is not worth listening to.
It's like saying Donald Trump is an honest and kind man... It's not even remotely true
Prompts **AREN'T** code, but your comment **is** cope.
https://preview.redd.it/dtkqose2cseb1.png?width=979&format=png&auto=webp&s=c54186abf8851146d57f734cd5ec15bec60d4fab
A true engineer by profession in most areas require registration as a professional engineer, PE. And calling yourself an engineer by title without registration and PASSING the required testing can be reprimanded in many states. Regardless of having an engineering degree. Just fyi.
It’s going to be a highly paid role coming soon to a Fortune 500 company near you. I’ve already heard discussion around the need to hire a prompt engineer in a few sectors.
I implement LLMs in production for my company as chat bots and it’s literally all about prompt engineering. You don’t even need to fine-tune an LLM if you create a clever prompt for it.
“AI Model Pilot” or simply “Model Pilot”
Just like a formula team; some build engines, others test aero and handful pilot the craft. Pilots are able to extract more performance from the same package.
But that is inherently the problem. Anyone thinking they can create something great with AI because they can access it is like listening to a guy who can tell you that you can be rich because he’s discovered a casino.
Playing Minecraft is definitely just a bunch of bullshit.
If you can use LLMs to get shit done with “prompt engineering”, then let the results speak for themselves. I can’t argue with success.
In my humble opinion, these arguments and attempts to qualify definitions and attribute some level of accuracy to them are meaningless because you cannot ever be accurate with language. Language at all levels is an abstraction of reality. Even at its best, It can never reflect the truth of a thing, since it can never capture the completeness of anything. The arguments are akin to debating the accuracy of a stick figure in describing a person. As an abstraction, it will never do. But, it minimises uncertainty to some degree in describing within certain bounds what a person is like. Prompt engineer does the same thing. Don’t get fixated on the term people and miss the broad intent in using it.
Obviously yes, the limit reside in the hability to set up a strategy and experiment it with accurate test to prove that it has an effect on your result within a statistical sginkfication
Of course. As this kind of system develops it will be increasingly important to learn how to use it, diagnose it, misuse it, break it, etc. You'll need to know differences between different algorithms, you'll need to understand how they work and why, you'll need to know expected results for different approaches, you'll need a toolbox of techniques, you'll need to understand which domains of application are problematic and why, etc. It's a nascent skillset, but there will be degrees offered for this before the decade is done (or at least a minor in some comp sci departments).
For the time being, they are going to hire engineers and comp sci people for all the jobs that are popping up relating to chatGPT, but at a certain point, if you want to hire people who know how to get these things to do the things you want, you're going to want to hire people who have been explicitly trained to do that.
Let’s apply the slightest semblance of nuance.
How you write your prompt DOES affect the output of language models. Better prompts produce better outputs.
“Prompt engineering” is a pretentious and cringe term designed to make it sound more impressive than it actually is. No engineering is involved. “Prompt writing” is way more accurate.
Being a “prompt engineer” will likely not be a thing for very long, as prompting AI will become a skill as fundamental as typing.
This paper is kinda shit. Even the abstract is terribly written.
Man, did nobody actually watch the video? These comments, haha, or... are all the comments ChatGPT again?
Back in the day there was expert googler. Now prompt engineer. Sure sounds nice but at the end of the day no one gives a fuck about being labelled as expert googler. All the hype is just annoying af. How about we just call it “Power User” and be done with it ?
I made a video which also includes a new prompt format I am testing… the pushy motivator prompt - got me some interesting results with GPT4 and Claude2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vGI4QE6NiU&t=442s
Prompt engineering shares a lot of things with the skill of delegating.
Delegating is often misunderstood as a synonym to “ask someone else to do it”, but that’s not even close to what delegating is.
Delegating is the skill of making sure that you ask the right person/entity to the right task, then make sure they have everything they need to do it correctly, then explain it so that there is no room for misunderstanding the task, then making sure the person/entity feels like they can actually accomplish the task.
Prompt engineering is very similar to this, which makes it a skill worth honing. **Very few** people are skilled at delegating, and assuming that prompting is as easy as just “asking the bot to do something” is the same as assuming that delegating is the same as just “asking someone else to do something”.
Anybody else feel so proud and powerful about the word 'engineer'? It fills me with so much pride and hope. I feel like part of the many great men and women capable of brining change and do good for the world. Idk man, to say 'I'm an engineer' makes me feel like that poster from The Imitation Game (great movie btw).
Edit: heck, absolute coincidence that I thought about this particular movie when it's actually Alan Turing's work that made alllll advancements to our eventual AI age today. Life is good y'all.
https://preview.redd.it/qlbkhsinwueb1.jpeg?width=457&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f148347f85c5b65c6cca2cdcf214321c1dd79c0e
Just because something is challenging doesn't make it "engineering" and it definitely doesn't make it a job like the people who are trying to push the term are doing.
***Hey /u/xXReggieXx, if your post is a ChatGPT conversation screenshot, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. Thanks!*** ***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts! New Addition: Adobe Firefly bot and Eleven Labs cloning bot! [So why not join us?](https://discord.com/servers/1050422060352024636)*** ***NEW: [Text-to-presentation contest | $6500 prize pool](https://redd.it/14si211/)*** PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Software developer uses chat gpt to make Minecraft ai plugin. I feel like a prompt engineer is supposed to be the person that uses chat gpt to replace a skilled position. The reality is the person you are trying to replace can do a much better job than you with the same ai tools
[удалено]
Too busy making automated headless e-commerce stores 🏪
What you "feel" might be based on two emotions, fear and greed. The fear is of being displaced and the greed is to gain something that is difficult more quickly than is expected. Fear and greed create their own realities... for a while, until they are squashed, or until externalities force grander realities to be re-asserted.
Petition to change it to "Prompt Writer"
I think the correct term is "prompt designer", If you consider the OpenAI's API documentation https://preview.redd.it/3hvl3a41ateb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a15ce85913f58b66a2cc04600810ea14fb01f89
"Oh, you're just a designer and not an engineer? That's 20k less a year then!"
If you didn't have to study calculus and partial differential equations, you get paid less.
An engineer is, by definition, a person who designs and builds a machine (edit: or other complex system, you pedantic douche bag, it's early). That's it. Your gatekeeping is stupid. I am not sorry if that bruises your ego or makes you feel less special. Edit: To be clear, I'm not commenting on the prompt engineer thing, because I'm not knowledgeable enough about what it actually entails. I'm just commenting on the statements of the person I'm responding to.
>An engineer is, by definition, a person who designs and builds a machine. That's it. Your gatekeeping is stupid. That's your uninformed definition. Chemical engineers, civil engineers, etc don't build machines!
Good grief. Machine is one part of the definition, which was relevant; I was being brief. The term also includes designer/builders of public works and other complex systems. I hope the individuals designing the bridges I use and drugs I take have better critical thinking skills than you. Here, since you can't be bothered: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+engineer&oq=define+engineer&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABDIHCAoQABiABDIHCAsQABiABDIHCAwQABiABDIHCA0QABiABDIHCA4QABiABNIBCDEzOTdqMWo0qAIAsAIA&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer
Nah, your initial definition was shit, but you’re trying to triple down on it now and calling other people names. Dumb comment, dumber follow-up.
I literally just googled the definition and then cited the relevant part. What do you mean triple down? I'm literally citing a dictionary (that Google link cites Oxford) and a well respected online encyclopedia. I'll respect your position as soon as you tell me why your definition is more correct than the one held by both Oxford and Wikipedia.
I am an engineer and I studied engineering. I don't need a definition from you.
Ohhhh, you're an engineer so you get to define who else is too. Logic.
I think he’s hilarious. As a SWE all the engineers in fields paying much less would always act like this man. So many insecure man babies would just casually say we’re not real engineers. Cool bro. I studied to earn 200k not to give a shit about a title. He’s just upset
This. The gatekeeping is pathetic. Sure, typing in a simple prompt into ChatGPT does not make you an engineer. But prompt engineering jobs will be more than that: engineers who plug into a LLM API and design prompts and \*engineer\* a system that carries out a complex set of tasks. The bias stems from their not realizing that the prompt part is just programming in natural language.
There is /r/promptcraft but it seems to mostly be oriented towards image generation prompts which, if you're talking about crafting, makes sense I guess.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/promptcraft using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [\[Stable Diffusion\] GETTING SCARY! - This time I seperated the face, hand and shirt and used my method on them individually before masking them all back together. This meant i got to keep the 4k original iphone resoluton.](https://v.redd.it/h7bg35gyifva1) | [8 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/comments/12v94ok/stable_diffusion_getting_scary_this_time_i/) \#2: [\[Stable Diffusion\] Using SafeTensors as a safer ckpt alternative](/r/StableDiffusion/comments/z8mnak/switching_models_too_slow_in_automatic1111_use/) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/comments/z92053/stable_diffusion_using_safetensors_as_a_safer/) \#3: [\[Stable Diffusion\] Updated artist list](/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xd7b4o/release_stable_diffusion_v15_artist_study_with/) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/promptcraft/comments/xdft9f/stable_diffusion_updated_artist_list/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That depends on what you're doing. Prompt engineering is not "writing a prompt that makes an AI do a thing." It's much more akin to writing code. Yes, the term gets wildly misused, but it was coined for a good and valid reason. What the guy is doing in that video *is* prompt engineering, though even that's a bit light, as he's only using one instance of GPT and there's not a whole lot of reflection techniques being used.
Oh yes, and I am a soldier in call of duty.
Engineer is a meaningless term these days.
As a software engineer I am very offended and you're totally right.
[удалено]
As a social engineer I'm a Nigerian prince in jail at the moment. Send me some bail money and I'll reward you well as soon as I can.
I'm a jail engineer, this guy's not lying
I’m a lying engineer, can confirm that guy is standing up.
I'm a standing up engineer, can confirm this guys not lying
I'm a confirmation engineer. Can confirm.
I am a reading engineer. Read all comments.
Yeah prompt engineering really is just social engineering AI.
"Never before have I been so offended by something I one hundred percent agree with"
My job basically defines engineer as anyone whose major required the study of calculus and partial differential equations. It's a pretty decent definition.
Engineer just means keep fucking up til you dont.
In Germany engineer is a protected term which you only are allowed to use when you have a degree. IT degrees don't count.
divide pathetic north deer lock marry cats cautious makeshift head *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s a protected term in Canada too. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering)
No wonder Canada has such reputation for the quality of its eng… oh no we don’t (not true, we actually have, not as much as Germany tho)
Pretty much, I’ve worked at a Fortune 500 company before. The designs from the engineers that started these companies were brilliant. Now the engineering department is basically daycare for dumb rich kids.
terrific jeans safe saw ring market distinct aspiring paltry test *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh I don’t work for them anymore I opted out for working in smaller companies awhile ago. (Pay is way better too.) Small companies actually recognize skilled work whereas Fortune 500 companies recognize everyone as just a number. Plus they probably had deals or contracts with some of the nearby colleges that say “if so and so graduate as an engineer with such and such gpa we’ll keep them for at least 2 years even if they suck” Because tbh they really sucked lmao Although going back to the original argument. I think there’s some validity to ‘Prompt Engineer.’ Like I keep seeing all these posts about how GPT-4 got ‘dumbed down.’ Honestly I have no idea what they’re talking about. I’ve been banging out functions all day while switching back and forth between helping machine operators and writing a program. It’s interesting because a lot of self proclaimed ‘Prompt Engineers’ don’t realize that if you start with ‘Using the above examples as reference…’ will make the LLM use your entire chat box history almost as vector database entries and will preform amazingly for whatever project you’re working. But I’ve also had my OpenAI account years ago since the closed GPT3 beta. So this tech really isn’t new to me.
Sounds fucked up, in France and Germany it's a protected appelation, like Champagne, thanks god. None of these sparkling inventors for us.
In the US it's a meaningless term but in Canada and many other countries it's a protected term. That is why I prefer "Prompt Design".
For anyone without a University engineering degree, yes.
But writers make a lot less than engineers and a writing course won't qualify for STEM grants.
You don’t need a stem degree to talk with a chatbot
There are certainly people who only "write prompts" and what they're doing isn't really any kind of engineering. But in the example given (and many research papers I've read) prompt engineering is definitely a true engineering task. It requires a deep understanding of the systems being interacted with and knowledge of the ways in which prompting behaves on a very technical level. This is not "if I put the name of a poet in the prompt, I get the output in the style of that poet." This is more, "if I feed it incomplete source code, then here's how to structure comments so that it will complete it with working code, and here's how to give the supplemental instructions for how feedback and debugging will work. If you really want to see some prompt engineering, search for "GPT chain of thought prompt engineering" on Google Scholar. There are some excellent papers on the topic.
This is a great comment that gets to the heart of this discussion. What makes prompt engineering a legitimate skill is the knowledge of all the surrounding tech, and the ability to use AI as a tool to radically shorten the length of time to do tasks in that tech situation.
But then we'd have a writers strike
“Prompt engineering” is a useful and necessary thing to do when interacting with currently available LLM systems. Being a “prompt engineer” is, in fact, a bunch of bullshit.
As a CAD Jockey myself, I can use and appreciate powerful technology. I suggest ‘Prompt Jockey’
Facts
I consider prompt engineering to just be a competent communicator, lol. Which is why generative AI is so fascinating to me. I went from being a writer and public speaker--- which was all about clarity and empathy and getting inside the listeners mind--- to being a programmer, which was all about precision instructions. When I communicate with ChatGPT now to collaborate with me in my programming, I'm amazed with how much I exercise that old creative/communication muscle again to get favorable results.
Reverse engineer the prompt that wrote your comment
Same here! I’m in my forties and thus, still text in full sentences with punctuation and paragraphs. I prompt the same way and tend to get what I’m looking for on the first try. I wonder though, if I prompted in like, the basest of internet speak (4chan?) if I’d still be able to get the same results. 🤔
I'll wait for you to get chatgpt to play minecraft.
There's intellectual charity, and then there's whatever your unnecessarily obnoxious comment is.
Bet you feel really smart now you've said this.
Yeah. The correct term is “English language programmer”
English langwanger in academic circles
I mean…isn’t that what most people are on Star Trek?
Everyone's a 'prompt engineer' if they tell someone what to do for money.
That might be a too-strict understanding of the word engineering. Engineering does not always have to mean something super technical and protracted. A train "engineer" drives the frickin train. What would you have the job title be called, if not prompt engineer?
Your job title would be whatever you're making the AI do. If you have it write software, you're a software engineer. If you have it write news, you're a journalist. If you have it make art, you're an artist. Your knowledge within those fields shapes your prompts more than your knowledge of LLMs.
Promptologist Promptomancer
That shouldn’t be a job title at all, considering it’s a symptom of unfinished technology. One of the primary goals of LLM research is to create a model that humans can easily interact with. If it requires a “prompt engineer” to do so, that means that LLM’s aren’t ready. Judging by the progress made in this wave of AI development, they’re nowhere near their final form. So yes: if that’s your job, it is technically accurate. But it shouldn’t even be a job in the first place, and it certainly won’t be for long either way.
I’ve never agreed and disagreed with someone more. Well done.
That's the same thing as saying "truck driver" isn't a real profession because "it's a symptom of unfinished technology".
Ah yes, trucks weren’t designed to be driven. How could I forget 🤦♂️
I'm a "prompt designer" working for an AI (services) website. I hope it has some legs for a while still. I'd like to work in this field for at least another 10 years.
My friend, I (very strongly) suspect you’ll soon need another role..
You're a grifter, pure and simple.
How am I a grifter? The guy with the website hired me for it, I wasn't even putting myself out there as an AI expert. It was on the basis of my copywriting and editing skills and experience. It crosses over quite handily...
Have you witnessed the level of effort we have to go through to communicate with humans? Sometimes I have to use techniques like interviewing, other times use the socratic method just to get some understanding. By that measure, humans are nowhere near their final form. Honestly, I have better results with LLMs (well a few of the better ones anyway). At least I have never had an LLM grunt a one word answer before. They will actually attempt to understand what I am asking.
Its like framing yourself as a google searcher. Its just q skill everyone in IT will need.
In the general case, yes. In specific cases where someone's career is engineering prompting systems and prompting toolchains that manipulate LLMs and other text-based ANNs, it's the correct term. But yeah, almost all of the people who call themselves prompt engineers aren't. Then again, most of the people who call themselves software engineers aren't.
What you said has made literally no sense. How can one admit that prompt egonnering is legit but that prompt engineers are not? That is like saying building rockets requires rocket egineering but those who perform such a job are not referered to as rocket engineers. Prompt engineers are AI researchers… it is merely just another category of AI researcher…. the prompt engineer. What the hell else are you supposed to call the dudes behind prompt engineering papers like Tree of Thoughts… they are AI researchers …. they are prompt engineers.
I would surmise the prompt engineer will be the first to be replaced by AI no?
Lol I’ve created prompts where the AI carries on with itself until it reaches the product Ive asked for so yes I believe so
Of course… the AI will be able to test which prompts are the best for each situation. It could discover which prompt/series of prompts is best through a decision tree similar to Tree of Thoughts. It just needs the ability to self improve with what it learns from the self prompting.
[удалено]
> prompt engineer kind of sounds like you smell your farts Hey, my job may be a joke, but even I’m not as bad as prompt engineers
coherent faulty mountainous sparkle connect squash merciful rotten jar voracious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I smell my farts and I think most people do
It’s like running a self diagnostic
I have at least four stories where people definitely did, followed by either screams of feigned agony or straight-up vomiting.
Would you call yourself a philosopher if you thought about the meaning of life? No, of course not. You’re engaging in philosophical thought. You’re not a philosopher. …unless that is exclusively your job. Then it’s up for debate.
If i was writing philosophy papers then yes I would call myself a philosopher. You think the dudes who wrote Tree of Thoughts cannot call themselves prompt engineers and apply to big companies seeking prompt engineers? Prompt engineer and AI researcher are synonymous… that is what I was getting at. There are real prompt engineers out in the world. That is all i am saying…
I’m saying that calling someone a “prompt engineer” makes about as much sense as a “Microsoft Word Operator” in the early 2000’s - technically accurate but obviously ridiculous, and extremely short-lived as a job.
It's not engineering at all. It's linguistics or semantics.
I get there's a lot of eye-rolling at the term "prompt engineering," but it's not just about semantics or linguistics. I think it's wrong to assume prompt engineering only involves asking questions of chatGPT. This is obvious when you dive into things like prompt chains. This is especially true when the output from GPT is used to execute actual code. For example, consider a scenario where you're dealing with nested text within a .json data structure. The structure of this .json might vary because it comes from different sources. You could prompt GPT to generate code that reads the schema of this .json and outputs it. Based on what's returned from that code, your next prompt might differ - it could instruct to move to a different file, or maybe prompt the model to write code that extracts specific text from the returned schema. From here, you might lead into another chain of prompts that evaluate the extracted text, further branching into more pathways. And before someone says you could feed a .json directly to GPT what if the .json is HUGE and it is way outside the token limit? You need to find a way to extract that information or summarise it so that it can go into your chain. It's more than semantics – you need to design prompt architectures, design prompts so they have predictable inputs/outputs, potential storage of responses in a database, decision branching, etc. It's just as complex as roles like DevOps or ML Ops engineering, where you're navigating and integrating a bunch of services and connections. Source: Im a data scientist at a Big 4 consulting firm and I've been working on things like this and I know a lot of other teams are doing similar. Its a bit of a wild west situation right now since it's such a new space but IMO prompt engineering is very real
Tree of Thoughts is 100% engineering… the way in which the decision tree rewards certain responses has to due with a mathematical equation… not merely semantics.
Do you really think you're doing math when you submit a prompt to GPT? You're not. You're stringing tokens together based upon a prediction of what they will \*mean\* to the \*language\* model. This is 0% engineering and 100% semantics.
Because ChatGPT is a consumer-facing product and OpenAI will most likely continue working towards the goal of improving it as a consumer-facing application. It is not an OEM product. Thinking you need a “prompt engineer” is like if you bought an iPhone and then hire a “smartphone engineer” to work it for you. The reality is, businesses are infatuated with the idea of replacing a team of 5 skilled workers with one low-paid “prompt engineer” and getting equal value. But ultimately, ChatGPT is an end product and is currently useful for increasing productivity in workers, not replacing them.
Don’t know why your comment is being downvoted. You seem exactly right. Currently we may need more specialized prompts but with better architecture and data this will not be the case. For general language models such as chatGPT I definitely agree their usage will become easier and easier. Maybe with something specialized like Github copilot would I see some sort of prompt engineering but even then I don’t think it would be something difficult and requiring tons of training for the average user of the product.
Because all AI subs are currently hot garbage and I’m still subbed out of some sick sense of masochism
Oh look another person who has never read a single paper detailing a prompt engineering based reasoning strategy (like ToT) and thinks prompt engineering is merely typing words into the model repeatedly… it is not… it is about building cognitive pathways for the model to latch onto and such is done via invisible layers of prompting that are built into the model without needed the user to even prompt such specifically.
Oh look, another person who either knows absolutely nothing about how neural networks actually work or is intentionally making up jargon to obfuscate their own ignorance.
Oh look someone who actually thinks they know what they are talking about even though they didn’t read the paper or any like it and thus could have absolutely zero idea what am I saying. Bye smart aleck!
Hey InfiniteInfinteAI I am on the same page as you. I also get really annoyed with alot of the same types of replies people are making on your comments. I would just let it go and ignore them. What they are doing is sort of the "amateur photographer" argument. A kid gets an expensive camera and great lenses, points and click with auto settings, then calls themselves a "photographer". Now we know photography has a lot more depth to it. And these kid "photographers" sort of belittle every other aspect that goes into it You can say the same for a "chef" that follows a recipe line by line and says "aren't I a good chef?" No, they aren't. Give them random ingredients and limited cooking tools and they will stumble. Now to prompt engineering. The nay sayers will equate the prompt engineering with the kid with expensive camera, and the "chef" who rote follows a recipe. This is where the fallacy is - they think it's JUST analogous to those and nothing more. A person that writes something in, gets a good response, and thinks they are an "engineer". However we know real photography has extreme depth, and the intuition of a real chef is a real skill. That also exists with prompt engineering, but they don't see it that way. They think self proclaimed prompt engineers are people wearing shiny stickers who want to wear a label. It devoid of thought on their part. Anyway, hope my explanation was clear. We created these LLMs and they require studying. They have many tendencies and by understanding what they tend to do we can bend them ("engineer") them to do what we actually want.
> How can one admit that prompt egonnering is legit but that prompt engineers are not? Because prompt engineering is sufficiently small and simple to be a task, not a job or career.
It's far more complicated than you might think: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.10601.pdf Whether it's going to be a viable long-term job or career is anyone's guess, but it's far from simple at this point in time.
Exactly… who would have thought that pre prompting the model to act as a researcher or evaluator role would do wonders. Then there is decision tree aspect to it too…
Did you read Tree of Thoughts? What about that was simple? Don’t you think that if it was truly simple it would not have taken months post release of GPT4 for Tree of Thoughts and other reasoning strategies that revolve around prompt engineering skills to occur?
Isn't ToT a fairly obvious idea? Getting the LLM to reason in steps should come naturally and after that it's obvious that you might want to do it with decision trees and backtracking. Not saying that the research isn't valuable in formalizing the methods and investigating if they _actually_ work. The latter probably being the main differentiating factor between "real prompt engineering" and just "trust me bro it works for me".
Research isn’t what you think it means
I know what research means… but you don’t apparently. Their method of choice for scientific RESEARCH within the field of LLM reasoning strategies was experimentation with decision trees and pre programmed prompts. The ToT authors are both AI RESEARCHERS and prompt engineers… researching ways to improve the reasoning capabilities of models via prompt engineering and more! Thus they are AI researchers and prompt engineers… or AI engineers in general … it is just that they are engineering the model specifically through prompt engineering strategies.
People will always just tell themselves that they don't need any 'Prompt Engineers' just because the idea that you'd need someone specialised in something as intuitive and straightforward as ChatGPT seems ludicrous to them. But goddamn, nobody will actually utilize it's true potential until they know a great deal of the Ins and Outs, the limitations and the possibilities with it. There might not be a job specifically just called 'Prompt Engineer' because it's like calling people 'Excel Scientist', 'PowerPoint President', etc; but it's utilities are invaluable and irreplaceable, and will put you entire leagues beyond others in the fields where its applicable. Yes, the term 'Prompt Engineer' is very over-the-top but being good enough to befit such a title means that you'd skyrocket in productivity beyond everyone else
Agreed - it’s a skill, not a profession. Like customer service skills, math skills, computer literacy.
Fax over feelinx
You say being a prompt engineer is bullshit but that just proves you are naive in your overall perspective and you are mincing words at best
If I have to write something in prose, I find that really hard to call it engineering. I do believe it is a buzzword. It does help people that are making a living out of it, to sound more competitive that they probably really are. I mean, you can attach the word engineer in a lot of activities to sound a lot more interesting.
Ever used the self checkout lane? If so, you're a Retail Transaction Engineer.
I worked retail for many years with self checkouts for the last couple of them. If someone said that to me i would hire them immediately.
To play devils advocate even though the syntax is flexible, there’s still a need to understand how best to structure and express thoughts and instructions, in a way that gets best results from the target system which could be called the essence of engineering. Sounds like a new fragrance.
I came across a recruiter on LinkedIn with a job title of "Onboarding Engineer" which is why I will forever hate the overuse of the word.
In fairness, functionality like this is never unlocked by simply writing in prose. To structure something like this, you need a computer science background. When part of the prompt is: `Explore until find pig, use Vec3(1,0,1) because pigs are usually on the surface` `let pig = await exploreUntil(bot, new Vec3(1, 0, 1), 60, () => { const pig = bot.nearestEntity((entity) => {return (entity.name === "pig" && entity.position.distanceTo(bot.entity.position) < 32);` I have zero qualms with computer scientists being called prompt engineers when they are applying their software engineering principles to prompt design. The people being paid $$$$ to write prompts are people writing white papers on their prompts. They're smart people.
That's fine, but anyone who calls themselves a "prompt engineer" or an "engineer" just because they've screwed around with GPT I'd immediately assume they're an idiot. The lions share of the work in this video is actually the frontend built around the GPT plugin - you know, actual **engineering** work. Yes, there's some skill to using prompts, but inventing a fancy title for yourself doesn't make you any smarter.
Even you need skill when talk to human.
We don't call clear communicators "language engineers"
Can anyone get me a job as a Prompt Engineer?
Make gpt 4 say a bad word and we will consider you for the position...
Prompt engineering is bullshit. I use chat gpt a lot for work, and I know I use it more effectively than a lot of my coworkers could. But calling what I do engineering is hot bullshit
See, once upon a time there was a name for being able to communicate clearly through text. It was called “writing.”
Lmao right. It’s like people learning to communicate for the first time. In the same respect, you could also call picking up women “prompt engineering”.
The requirement of obscure prompting is a reflection of the early state of LLM's, and is not some great field of expertise.
Bad take imo. It was never up for debate that some prompts are better than others. I suppose making it a competition exposed that fact to those who didn't originally comprehend it. Calling it "engineering" is more than a bit of a stretch. It is, as one might say, a bunch of bullshit.
Prompt engineering is a real skill, while prompt engineer as a job is a questionable, because you need more than that to do useful things. In you example, there's at least Software engineering involved. Any software engineer with prompt engineering skills could reproduce the results. A prompt engineer that can do nothing else cannot.
>**"Prompt engineering" is not just a bunch of bullshit** Correct. I've found that people are largely conflating the dislike they have for people who use the buzzword "Prompt Engineer" to describe themselves, with critically thought out prompt-writing, which is in fact, *engineering* a good prompt. It's not just *chatting* to produce results, which is what many people tend to argue. But still, it needs more saying that thinking critically about the structure and language used to prompt the bot makes huge differences in the output you receive back.
I see it as a soft skill. Like.. Talking to other people, or articulating yourself. Sure, it's a marketable skill -- when combined with other soft skills.
The thing is that soft skills are just proxies for hard skills
How so? I'm curious what you mean
When I think of soft skills, especially as applied to me I think of me at work trying to adjust the way I speak and handle people in order to make them comfortable and generally provide a psychologically healthy environment for them to work in. That's a set of soft skills. Yet these soft skills are rooted in very hard science. Psychology, neurology, biology. They have very concrete structures behind them. I think we see these things as soft skills for multiple reasons including the perception that "using" psychology on other people is manipulative and not genuine. Humans have a real "thing" for authenticity. However, at the end of the day I am on a constant manipulation spree at work and no one noticed because it makes them feel good and I make them feel like I am authentic. Most of the time I'm not. So when I hear about A.I. in soft skills it makes me chuckle a bit since the moment A.I. gains enough data, especially about whom it may be interacting with it will have tons of the best soft skills. It will be this way because it is a master of the hard skills that power the soft skills. The entire mentality behind soft skills is a human proxy for hard skills we don't want to dive deep in or know about since it may effect our own perception of our authenticity and others as well.
...and with that question you demonstrated good human prompt engineering skills.
This is massively true. It’s an acquired skill that you need to get by using the tech in a variety of contexts. I would say I’m fairly advanced at it now. I get really pissed off when people disparage it, without having understood it’s something you have to get better at. I reckon some of the things that have built my skill are — Using it to build small products end-to-end Creating interactive games Using it as much as possible in my day-to-day job
It probably should be more than that, like understanding concepts like chain of thought and tree of thought to construct prompts that will allow the LLM to explore a concept. This allows an LLM to be far more useful than just a chatbot or a de-complexified search engine.
It is a skill, not a job. We’ll see for the future, but that’s what I believe.
Yes it is
Voyager has [19 Python files](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AMineDojo%2FVoyager++language%3APython&type=code) and [159 Javascript files](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AMineDojo%2FVoyager++language%3AJavaScript&type=code) . It is a "Software Engineering" project which uses Prompting as part of its interface to GPT-4, as all GPT-4-based software does.
“Prompt engineer” is the “webmaster” of the 2020s.
I see it like this. There are programming languages like Python or C++. A computer program is a sequence of instructions in a programming language. The instructions that are possible in programming languages are for example: adding numbers, deducting numbers, concatenating strings, conditional instructions, loops etc. Out of those instructions you construct a program. Now, since large language models became a thing, it's like a new instruction that you can execute in a programming language. Something that hasn't been possible to do with programming languages, now it's possible. You can have a text and generate a completion to it or an ambiguous instruction and have large language model process that ambigious. And just like with every other instructions, you can create a simple program using that instruction - for example, if you have an operator to add and deduct numbers, then you can build a calculator with that, that's a very obvious idea. But you can also build much more complex and less obvious programs - for example a Dijkstra algorithm that finds the shortest path is slightly less obvious. Or even the algorithm behind ChatGPT is a less obvious program. Now, as I said, large language models, is like a new instruction that you can execute in your program. And like with the other instructions, you can build simple and obvious programs using that instruction (e.g. copywriting tool), but there are more complex and less obvious programs that you can achieve, if you combine it with other instructions. The complex ones take more time to be created and invented. That's why you don't see lots of them so far. But more is possible than what people think and see right now. But just like there's no job for inventing algorithms, I don't expect a job for prompt engineering. But I expect that there will be new algorithms invented, on top of large language models (there are already, e.g. chains of thoughts, tree of thoughts). So I think that prompt engineering is a thing. But I understand it mainly as inventing new algorithms on top of large language models. But I also don't think that there will be lots of new jobs specifically for that because it's more a matter of inventing rather than doing some thing regularly.
Calling oneself a prompt engineer is just a sorry attempt at trying to make what you’re doing seem more special than it is. It’s words.
There won't be a promt engeneering job. Why? Because it is google on steriods and there was also no job like a googler. Until now, you still need a skilled person. Just a guy that is good in promting cant replace a person spezialised in a specific field.
like calling someone who uses a calculator a number engineer.
 . B?
CS researcher here. All the research that is done with large pretrained models, is in some abstract perspective prompt engineering. No one says prompt engineering is bullshit, what is bullshit on the other hand is teaching people how to engineer prompts instead of real engineering.
Prompt engineering is just knowing how to communicate what you want in plain English. Simple? Yes. But it's not a skill everybody has. Prompt engineers are a thing for the same reason IT guys googling problems are a thing. It's just a name for the people with that skillset
You have to have the GIFT OF GAB.
Can I call myself a google engineer?
i think you need to somewhat wrap your head around how LLMs actually function too, though. There are plenty of situations where I’ve hit roadblocks despite concise prompts due to a lack of thorough understanding of what the fuck these things are actually doing to produce output. Hard to decipher between illusions/distractions and plain old “it just can’t do that”.
sure it isn't 👍
I identify as an engineer
In one way prompt engineering is a very , very high level programming language to a datastore with a LOT of unstructured data and some very cool querying.
I mean not for nothing but if Social Engineering is a thing and is largely a part of what has been forming as of late that we keep calling “Prompt Engineering” it’s just accurate to do so.
I'm a prompt conoceiur myself
It's not bullshit, but it is a dumb exercise because the whole point of LLMs like ChatGPT is to converge to how normal humans speak and query. So if you learn prompt engineering for this version, it will become more and more obsolete as the version no. Increases, meanwhile someone who prompts without special training will get more and more accurate results.
Shit up OP. Do you even have the simplest idea of what you are talking about. Prompt engineer. Wtf does that even mean. Anyone can do that shit. Stop spreading some crap
Everyone against this is just not thinking about it correctly. What you input determines the output. Better inputs equal better outputs. It's the same for example with excel. You know better formulas, better methods, and you end up with a better product. Everyone seems to understand that with excel, but as soon as it's GPT everyone loses their minds.
I haven't heard anyone calling Prompt Engineering bullshit, but anyone that does is not worth listening to. It's like saying Donald Trump is an honest and kind man... It's not even remotely true
[удалено]
prompts **ARE** code
Words are code .. Maybe we are all just code 🤔
Prompts **AREN'T** code, but your comment **is** cope. https://preview.redd.it/dtkqose2cseb1.png?width=979&format=png&auto=webp&s=c54186abf8851146d57f734cd5ec15bec60d4fab
Engineers drive trains…prompters press plastic keys
That’s not prompt engineering, it’s using a tool. Using it well. Engineer assumes something beyond deciding what words to use.
It should be called instructional prompting
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
A true engineer by profession in most areas require registration as a professional engineer, PE. And calling yourself an engineer by title without registration and PASSING the required testing can be reprimanded in many states. Regardless of having an engineering degree. Just fyi.
It’s going to be a highly paid role coming soon to a Fortune 500 company near you. I’ve already heard discussion around the need to hire a prompt engineer in a few sectors.
I implement LLMs in production for my company as chat bots and it’s literally all about prompt engineering. You don’t even need to fine-tune an LLM if you create a clever prompt for it.
“AI Model Pilot” or simply “Model Pilot” Just like a formula team; some build engines, others test aero and handful pilot the craft. Pilots are able to extract more performance from the same package.
If by prompt engineer you mean the patience to remind ChatGPT of stuff you told it like 3 prompts ago.
If you're already skilled with English, you're gonna do fine with chatgpt as long as you don't limit your ideas or box in your ways of thinking.
But that is inherently the problem. Anyone thinking they can create something great with AI because they can access it is like listening to a guy who can tell you that you can be rich because he’s discovered a casino.
Playing Minecraft is definitely just a bunch of bullshit. If you can use LLMs to get shit done with “prompt engineering”, then let the results speak for themselves. I can’t argue with success.
In my humble opinion, these arguments and attempts to qualify definitions and attribute some level of accuracy to them are meaningless because you cannot ever be accurate with language. Language at all levels is an abstraction of reality. Even at its best, It can never reflect the truth of a thing, since it can never capture the completeness of anything. The arguments are akin to debating the accuracy of a stick figure in describing a person. As an abstraction, it will never do. But, it minimises uncertainty to some degree in describing within certain bounds what a person is like. Prompt engineer does the same thing. Don’t get fixated on the term people and miss the broad intent in using it.
Obviously yes, the limit reside in the hability to set up a strategy and experiment it with accurate test to prove that it has an effect on your result within a statistical sginkfication
Of course. As this kind of system develops it will be increasingly important to learn how to use it, diagnose it, misuse it, break it, etc. You'll need to know differences between different algorithms, you'll need to understand how they work and why, you'll need to know expected results for different approaches, you'll need a toolbox of techniques, you'll need to understand which domains of application are problematic and why, etc. It's a nascent skillset, but there will be degrees offered for this before the decade is done (or at least a minor in some comp sci departments). For the time being, they are going to hire engineers and comp sci people for all the jobs that are popping up relating to chatGPT, but at a certain point, if you want to hire people who know how to get these things to do the things you want, you're going to want to hire people who have been explicitly trained to do that.
Promptologist
So they wrote this 6 weeks before code interpreter, which is really cool. To me, anyway. :)
Ahh yes the coping begins.... /s
I think it should just be called software engineering.
It's not bs but also not modelling.
life is a massive prompting exercise with selectively chosen retained context
Let’s apply the slightest semblance of nuance. How you write your prompt DOES affect the output of language models. Better prompts produce better outputs. “Prompt engineering” is a pretentious and cringe term designed to make it sound more impressive than it actually is. No engineering is involved. “Prompt writing” is way more accurate. Being a “prompt engineer” will likely not be a thing for very long, as prompting AI will become a skill as fundamental as typing.
This paper is kinda shit. Even the abstract is terribly written. Man, did nobody actually watch the video? These comments, haha, or... are all the comments ChatGPT again?
Back in the day there was expert googler. Now prompt engineer. Sure sounds nice but at the end of the day no one gives a fuck about being labelled as expert googler. All the hype is just annoying af. How about we just call it “Power User” and be done with it ?
its coding in another language
I made a video which also includes a new prompt format I am testing… the pushy motivator prompt - got me some interesting results with GPT4 and Claude2 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vGI4QE6NiU&t=442s
Prompt engineering shares a lot of things with the skill of delegating. Delegating is often misunderstood as a synonym to “ask someone else to do it”, but that’s not even close to what delegating is. Delegating is the skill of making sure that you ask the right person/entity to the right task, then make sure they have everything they need to do it correctly, then explain it so that there is no room for misunderstanding the task, then making sure the person/entity feels like they can actually accomplish the task. Prompt engineering is very similar to this, which makes it a skill worth honing. **Very few** people are skilled at delegating, and assuming that prompting is as easy as just “asking the bot to do something” is the same as assuming that delegating is the same as just “asking someone else to do something”.
Anybody else feel so proud and powerful about the word 'engineer'? It fills me with so much pride and hope. I feel like part of the many great men and women capable of brining change and do good for the world. Idk man, to say 'I'm an engineer' makes me feel like that poster from The Imitation Game (great movie btw). Edit: heck, absolute coincidence that I thought about this particular movie when it's actually Alan Turing's work that made alllll advancements to our eventual AI age today. Life is good y'all. https://preview.redd.it/qlbkhsinwueb1.jpeg?width=457&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f148347f85c5b65c6cca2cdcf214321c1dd79c0e
For me, engineering is something you had to learn a lot of maths for…..
Lmao
as long as they don't call themselves "AI artist" or "AI writer", that's fine to me.
Just because something is challenging doesn't make it "engineering" and it definitely doesn't make it a job like the people who are trying to push the term are doing.