Not sure if this is a part of it, but there are places where "engineer" is a protected title that requires a degree or license. I work with a bunch of folks in Quebec and they have to use the title "software developer" unless they are a member of the Order of Engineers. I find this to be pretty silly considering someone can have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and use the title "Software Engineer" but someone with a degree in Computer Science can't.

The less rigorous and more vague some theory is, the easier it is to use it to make unfalsifiable claims. That's the essence of the current discussion around AGI. No one knows what it is or describe it concretely so it can do anything and everything and everyone's going to lose their jobs.

It's funny because of the irony of "prompt engineering" being as close to cargo culting as things get. No one knows what the model is or how it's structured in a higher level (non implementation) sense, people just try different things until something works, and try what they've seen other people do.

This article is at least interesting in that it takes a stab at explaining prompt efficacy with some sort of concrete basis, even if it lacks rigor.

It's actually a really important question about LLMs: how are they to be used to get the best results? All the work seems to be on the back end, but the front end is exceedingly important. Right now it's some version of Deep Thought spitting out the answer '42'.

TBF I always read prompt engineering as the 2nd definition, not the first.

> 1. the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.

2. the action of working artfully to bring something about.

So you're trying to learn what / how to prompt, in order to "bring something about" (the results you're after).

What’s the problem?

-A Prompt Architect