Remix.run Logo
42lux a day ago

Because it's alchemy and everyone believes they have an edge on turning lead into gold.

elcritch a day ago | parent | next [-]

I've been thinking for a couple of months now that prompt engineering, and therefore CoT, is going to become the "secret sauce" companies want to hold onto.

If anything that is where the day to day pragmatic engineering gets done. Like with early chemistry, we didn't need to precisely understand chemical theory to produce mass industrial processes by making a good enough working model, some statistical parameters, and good ole practical experience. People figured out steel making and black powder with alchemy.

The only debate now is whether the prompt engineering models are currently closer to alchemy or modern chemistry? I'd say we're at advanced alchemy with some hints of rudimentary chemistry.

Also, unrelated but with CERN turning lead into gold, doesn't that mean the alchemists were correct, just fundamentally unprepared for the scale of the task? ;)

parodysbird 16 hours ago | parent [-]

The thing with alchemy was not that their hypotheses were wrong (they eventually created chemistry), but that their method of secret esoteric mysticism over open inquiry was wrong.

Newton is the great example of this: he led a dual life, where in one he did science openly to a community to scrutinize, in the other he did secret alchemy in search of the philosopher's stone. History has empirically shown us which of his lives actually led to the discovery and accumulation of knowledge, and which did not.

iamcurious 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Newton was a smart guy and he devoted a lot of time to his occult research. I bet that a lot of that occult research inspired the physics. The fact that his occult research remains, occult from the public, well that is natural aint it?

parodysbird 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You can be inspired by anything, that's fine. Gell-mann was amusing himself and getting inspiration from Buddhism for quantum physics. It's the process of the inquiry that generates the knowledge as a discipline, rather than the personal spark for discovery.

viraptor 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We won't know without an official answer leaking, but a simple answer could be - people spend too much time trying to analyse those without understanding the details. There was a lot of talk on HN about the thinking steps second guessing and contradicting itself. But in practice that step is both trained by explicitly injecting the "however", "but" and similar words and they do more processing than simply interpreting the thinking part as text we read. If the content is commonly misunderstood, why show it?