How can prompt engineering not be a thing so long as prompts are needed? If a different range of inputs produces a different range of outputs how could there be no room for nuances? Or how is intent engineering really any different? It’s all based off an prompt input right?
I think part of this comes from the fact that the same input will produce a different output.
Prompt engineering will be a thing, but I don't think it will be as prevalent as people think it will be. Look at projects like langchain. To me its biggest value is the library of standard prompts it provides. So I think prompt engineering will probably be a "niche" job the same way C programming is a "niche" job. Its super specialized and most people doing C programming are also experts in specific architectures they are programming in.
Saying that LangChain removes the value of learning to write prompts sounds to me like saying that the existence of ORMs removes the value of learning SQL.
I never said langchain "removes the value of learning to write prompts". My point is it abstracts it out enough that not everyone working with LLMs will need to know how to do it at a very high level. Just like most programmers can't write assembly/C, but we have tools which abstract it out so that experts can write/generate it for us. I don't know about SQL and ORM to respond to your analogy.
> the existence of ORMs removes the value of learning SQL.
No that SQL has no value, but this is exactly what ORMs do for a lot of people. They stay in their language instead of having to learn SQL (not saying this is ideal).
I think part of this comes from the fact that the same input will produce a different output.