“prompt engineering” in itself is such an embarrassing term for the act of saying “computer uhhh show me epic boobies!!”
like that joke about calling dishwashing “submerged porcelain technician” but unironically
It’s not engineering either. Or art. It’s only barely writing, in an overly literal sense.
“prompt engineering”
Sounds made up af
The US add engineer to everything to sound most prestigious than they are. If you sell your service as a AI prompt writer, you get paid peanuts. If you sell the same service as AI prompt engineer, the C-Suites cream their pants.
So you’re telling me that people advertise themselves as AI programmers? That does not seem like something to brag about in such a manner
Yeah right?
I’ve found it helpful in learning things about languages I’m unfamiliar with, but it seems like saying “I’m an AI programmer” means “I don’t really know what I’m doing in this language, I’m still learning.” Which I suppose shows a willingness to learn, but that’s about it.
Lots of people think that computers are magic box. And now a diffuse entity in the cloud talk to them? Big heads will gobble that shit up.
deleted by creator
What prompt did you use to make this 🤨🤔
The irony. I bet the guy who prompted that calls himself an artist.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/family-laughing-at-crying-child-opening-christmas-present
That includes some history, but not the prompt itself.
Was going to comment about how there is a stock photo for everything. Fingers seem too good for AI?
Nevermind, that kids right hand… 😅
Also: the middle fingers are far too long
None of it even looks remotely correct to me, I can’t believe it’s passable for some people.
Now look at his eyelids…
That’s why I’m proud to be also programming in HTML
it’s only real programming if you also use CSS
It’s only real gatekeeping if you have a physical gate
“Engineering”
Removed by mod
Yeah, well, like most software engineers lol
I’m a huge stickler about degreeless website devs claiming to be Engineers but even I think they’re leagues above people who ask ChatGPT for advice.
They’re not engineers and they’re too chicken shit to act like engineers.
Removed by mod
Making middle management do everything is not ‘running a business’.
If middle management is doing everything aren’t they no longer middle management?
They get middle paychecks.
And vetoed on sensible decisions in favour of non-sensible ones that make the upper management larger bonuses.
But is “prompt hacking” considered actual “hacking?”
I also can make up words.
hörgenmal
Looks like an ai did that
That’s the joke.
HATERS will say it’s fake
And HATERS will be absolutely correct
If you look close enough, all pictures are fake.
Is that you, Samsung?
mm yes ai
Bro if you could get there just by prompting, it would be.
There are no models good enough to just ask for something to be done and it gets done.
There will be someday though.
Build an entire ecosystem, with multiple frontends, apps, databases, admin portals. It needs to work with my industry. Make it run cheap on the cloud. Also make sure it’s pretty.
The prompts are getting so large we may need to make some sort of… Structured language to pipe into… a device that would… compile it all…
I mean it can start much smaller.
Here is access to a jira board. Here are unit tests. Do stuff until it works.
Perfect! We’ll just write out the definition of the product completely in Jira, in a specific way, so the application can understand it - tweak until it’s perfect, write unit tests around our Jira to make sure those all work - maybe we write a structured way to describe each item aaand we’ve reinvented programming.
I see where you’re going, but I’ve worked with AI models for the last year in depth, and there’s some really cool stuff they can do. However, truly learning about them means learning their hard pitfalls, and LLMs as written would not be able to build an entire application. They can help speed up parts of it, but the more context means more VRAM exponentially, and eventually larger models, and that’s just to get code spit out. Not to mention there is nuance in English that’s hard to express, that requirements are never perfect, that LLMs can iterate for very long before they run out of VRAM, that they can’t do devops or hook into running apps - the list goes on.
AI has been overhyped by business because they’re frothing at the mouth to automate everyone away - which is too bad because what it does do well it does great at - with limitations. This is my… 3rd or 4th cycle where business has assumed they can automate away engineers, and each time it just ends up generating new problems that need to be solved. Our jobs will evolve, sure, but we’re not going away.
I mean, I had beta access to ChatGPT and have gotten excellent results from clever use, so I don’t appreciate the appeal to authority.
No, the jobs are going away and you are delusional if you think otherwise. ChatGPT is the DeepBlue of these kinds of models, and a global effort is being made to get to the AlphaGo level of these models. It will happen, probably in weeks to months. A company, like Microsoft for example, could build something like this, never release it to the public, and if successful, can suddenly out-compete every other software company on the planet. 100%.
Your attitude is a carbon copy of the same naysaying attitude that could be see all over hackernews before ChatGPT found its way to the front page. That AI wasn’t ever going to do XY or Z. Then it does. Then the goal posts have to move.
AI will be writing end to end architecture, writing teh requirements documents, filling out the jira tickets. Building the unit tests. If you don’t think that a company would LOVE to depart with its 250k+ per year software engineers, bro…
lol okay dude. Flippantly you ignored all of the limitations I pointed out. Sure it could happen, but not on the timeline you’re discussing. There is no way within a year that they have replaced software engineers, I call absolute BS on that. I doubt it will rise above copilot within a year. I see it being used alongside code for a long time, calling out potential issues, optimizing where it can, and helping in things like building out yaml files. It cannot handle an entire solution, the hardware doesn’t exist for it. It also can’t handle specific contexts for business use-cases. Again maybe, but it’ll be a while - and even then our jobs shift to building out models and structuring AI prompts in a stable way.
My attitude is the same because these are the same issues that it’s faced. I’m not arguing that it’s not a great tool to be used, and I see a lot of places for it. But it’s naiive to say that it can replace an engineer at it’s stage, or in the near future. Anyone who has worked with it would tell you that.
I firmly do think companies want to replace their 250k engineers. That’s why I know that most of it is hype. The same hype that existed 20 years ago when they came out with designers for UIs, the same hype when react and frontend frameworks came out. Python was built to allow anyone to code, and that was another “end of engineers”. Cloud claimed to be able to remove entire IT departments, but those jobs just shifted to DevOps engineers. The goalposts moved each time, but the demand for qualified engineers went up because now they needed to know these new technologies.
Why do you think I worked with AI so much over the last year? I see my job evolving, I’m getting ready for it. This has happened before - those who don’t learn new tech get left behind, those who learn it keep going. I may not be coding in python in 10 years, god knows I wasn’t doing what I was 10 years ago - but it’s laughable to me to think that engineers are done and over with.
You seem mad and strongly opinionated, but I hate arguing when there is nothing on the line. Would you be interested in a gentleman’s bet then?
My thesis is that we’ll have (or some one will, you and I may not have access) to a form of interactive AI that can effectively code from scratch some kind of large-ish application (like a website), make changes to that website, add features, etc, in the next few years, like, very few.
I’d like to come to terms with you and lay down a bet. If need be we can start a sublemmy to post the bet publicly and we can be held accountable for public shaming if we fail to put up.
For the purposes of a bet, I want to suggest that a code base ‘as complicated’ as Lemmy is a good barometer. My getting this prediction right will be to show you an example of that happening in media, or ideally, being able to show it in use. I think in media should be considered acceptable.
In my circles, we usually make these bets beers or bottles of the counterparties favorite drink, and I’m willing to offer you the following terms: 3:1 in the first year, 2:1 in the second year, and 1:1 in the first year. If the above thesis isn’t confirm, I’m wrong and I’ll make it clear that I acknowledge that I’m wrong.
I would like to bet 12 bottles on my thesis based on the above terms, (where a case of 12 bottles of the preferred liquor or beer or whatever does not exceed $200, so like a 12 pack of good beer or mid tier wine).
Is that a deal you can agree to?
It will happen, probably in weeks to months.
in the next few years, like, very few
Now who’s moving the goalposts…?
There are no models good enough to just ask for something to be done and it gets done.
We call those “compilers”. There are many of them.
People in glass houses…
Software engineering isn’t engineering.
Yes, it is. Mostly because “real engineering” isn’t the high bar it’s made out to be. From that blog:
Nobody I read in these arguments, not one single person, ever worked as a “real” engineer. At best they had some classical training in the classroom, but we all know that looks nothing like reality. Nobody in this debate had anything more than stereotypes to work with. The difference between the engineering in our heads and in reality has been noticed by others before, most visibly by Glenn Vanderburg. He read books on engineering to figure out the difference. But I wanted to go further.
Software has developed in an area where the cost of failure is relatively low. We might make million dollar mistakes, but it’s not likely anybody dies from it. In areas where somebody could die from bad software, techniques like formal verification come into play. Those tend to make everything take 10 times longer, and there’s no compelling reason for the industry at large to do that.
If anything, we should lean into this as an advantage. How fast can we make the cycle of change to deployment?
I help make Healthcare software. Mistakes can easily lead to death. Not most, but it’s something we always have to worry about.
We might make million dollar mistakes, but it’s not likely anybody dies from it.
I had a coworker who got a gig writing PDA software for a remote-controlled baseball machine. He was to this day the most incompetent programmer I’ve ever met personally; his biggest mistake on this project was firing a 120 mph knuckleball (a pitch with no spin so its flight path is incredibly erratic) a foot over a 12-year-old kid’s head. This was the only time in my 25-year career that I had to physically restrain someone (the client, in this case) to prevent a fist fight. I replaced my coworker on the project after this and you can bet I took testing a little bit more seriously than he did.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter
You are now subscribed to thathappened! Type oops to unsubscribe
By how some teams operate, and some developers think, there is certainly cases where the “engineering” aspect is hard to find.
In many cases this is accurate. Programming alone doesn’t amount to engineering. Lotta low quality lines of code being churned out these days because standards have dropped.
Looks like every Christmas I’ve ever had…
j/k, or am I?
No I am… but am I really? :-P
