It's not really a skill. The models are at this point smarter than you are, so the idea that you can prompt them "better" is laughable really when discussing frontier models.

It's like imagining you could "prompt" Richard Feynman to be smarter at Physics.

That is, for 99.9% of engineers, if you want the model to do a code review of your project, the best solution is to just ask Fable, "Hey Fable, do a code review of this project." Throwing in extra text like "think like a senior engineer", "ensure you focus on DRY principles, KISS, self documenting code, etc", doesn't make a difference.

These sorts of tricks used to work with dumber models, but now, like I said before, it's like thinking you can prompt Linus Torvalds into writing better C than he already can do.

▲ defrost 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FWiW

> it's like thinking you can prompt Linus Torvalds into writing better C++ than he already can do.

  Linus Torvalds, the inventor (and beloved dictator) of Linux, has always been quite harsh about C++ and why he rejects it for Linux kernel development. He’s not just been very vocal about it, but also brought up some arguments against the use of C++ that are worth reviewing in detail.

~ https://medium.com/@jankammerath/linus-torvalds-critique-of-...

▲

saberience 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, the point stands.

The models are beyond expert level in many areas at this point.

Do you really believe that adding extra junk to your prompt is going to make the model write code better than it does already?

Again, imagine going to Terrence Tao and "prompting" him to get better at Maths, do you think you can do it? What prompt would you give to him to make him produce better maths. Unless you're already a world-leading Mathematician I think you would find it hard.

	▲	cityofdelusion an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Models are not rational thinking brains, so the point is moot. Extra prompt text isn’t to make the model smarter, it’s to pull attention towards what you want. “Do code review” is far different from “Make sure changes align with existing architecture” or “follow these enterprise standards XYZ”. The model just acts as an average of its training data, which may or may not align with your goals.
	▲	alwillis 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I mean, the point stands. The models are beyond expert level in many areas at this point. It's not that the models aren't smart or whatever; we know they're extremely capable. There's always going to be value in being able to clearly communicate what you want the model to do, especially when the context is lacking.

▲ Yiin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I find this very much untrue in my practice and my testing, where fable prompted to do a review found surface level issues, while prompting along the lines of "assume it's wrong, prove it's correct" found much more in depth and real issues.

▲ gavmor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"DRY" and "KISS" are, possibly, the least interesting principles to which a software designer might adhere.

▲ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ sjh9714 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]