Comment by connorboyle
8 hours ago
Been skeptical for quite some time that "using AI" is a real skill/genuine field of expertise. I think I need to start sharing that skepticism more loudly and publicly!
(I'll caveat that by saying I think machine learning fundamentals are useful for evaluating any estimator. And an ML background can be good to give one an appreciation of how hard some tasks are to estimate, such as machine translation, summarization, code generation, and others)
Plus if or when they do work noticeably better, you'll be able to just ask them to improve your prompts. Because those prompts are discussed heavily online, and are in the training data.
You can do this now. It works alright sometimes. Other times you're reminded that this is largely just reading tea leaves, and you're trying very hard to separate anecdotes from data and not anthropomorphize it.
I think knowing what you want (and being able to articulate it with adequate specificity, and detecting when processes drift away from it) is a real skill/field of expertise. I just don't think it's specific to interfacing with "AI."
I almost entirely agree with this. However, after coding quite a few large projects with LLM assistance, I can say with certainty that there is some form of "art" at play with regards to structuring requests for LLMs.
However, this "art" is not so much about how to present a given request to the LLM, but rather guestimating what the scope of the next chunk of work should be to balance getting as much out of the model as possible while avoiding the machine going off the rails.
Obviously, this is a moving target and different models perform differently for various chunk/scope of work. I look at my successful sessions with LLMs and I'm not sure I'd be able to articulate a clear set of rules to apply here. You just... gradually build a intuition for how much you can throw at the LLM at once.
That being said, I'm pretty convinced at this point that this is a property of the coding assistants as they exist today, and what "working well with LLM assistance" means will keep on changing.
Hypothesis: Good Jenga players will make good coding-assistant prompters.
I agree. These skills apply to interacting with any coworker, or any person for that matter.
Indeed. It sounds more like management (Minus the 'people skills' since you don't technically need Claude to like you... yet).
IME "creating a good spec" (and good acceptance criteria) has always been one of the most valuable skills in... well, everything.
The machine is really good at working the spec on its own now, which is amazing, science fiction shit. But you've still got a garbage in, garbage out problem at the end of the day, which is pretty much the only hope we who work in software have of remaining somehow employed.
Having domain expertise isn't specific to using AI.
Not being able to tell when it's hallucinating has led to some very adverse outcomes.
Including for about 1809 lawyers https://damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations
I think we still have a solid control lever on the quality of code we can get AI to generate. Using things like linters and code style checkers, as well as setting up the markdown documentation to guide the agent to generating consistent code will certainly generate different code than just prompting.
Similarly there was an example of edit: Terence (not Eric) Tao chatting with an agent attempting to solve a math problem. "Using AI" means applying your expertise to interact with it as you would a high level colleague. 2 experts in a field don't need to have perfect english and a bloated prompt, they have a massive education/experience common background to fall back on.
It does appear that anthropic in particular is attempting to create a more common experience across expertise levels, but in the current landscape an expert and a novice are unlikely to get the same results. But that does seem to be the goal...
In this case they didn’t know what they were looking for. They just wanted some new, non-trivial exploit.
For the vast majority of corporate usage of AI for SWE, you have a much better idea of what you want, or what the problem is, etc etc. And communicating that to the model effectively is absolutely a skill. I see colleagues every day who very much do not have that skill.
I agree with this in general but I think there's a nuance. 'dumb' prompts can get the result, but require more back-and-forth with the model and more token usage when compared to a crafted prompt
For sure. And honestly the real skill is knowing when you can be lazy and when you will get a good ROI on a good prompt. Sorry I sounded a little like Claude there but that’s what I meant to say.
It's still a skill for now. Prompt engineering specifically is perhaps not as much of a skill anymore, but I think there's a level of skill involved in understanding and/or anticipating when a model is going off the rails.
Some people struggle to effectively use AI because they either have to spend a lot of time reading and thinking about the response or they have a hard time noticing when the model is subtly going off the rails. Others use it to good effect because they can anticipate which tasks would be better handled manually, or are good at catching that the way the model is describing something subtly indicates a misunderstanding.
LLMs and their coding harnesses like CC, Codex, or such are a tool like git or bash or your favorite programming language. And like any tool, they have gotchas, weird concepts, and so on.
Indeed it's nothing hard to learn but there is a learning curve. E.g. knowing which model has which capabilities, and figuring out how to best manage context, permissions, worktrees, etc. There isn't one "right" way to use it but there are more efficient ways and less efficient ways.