Doesn't matter that much.

Management thinks they can do our jobs by replacing us with a shell scrip... LLM prompt.

We're always moving up and down the tech ladder, solving problems we thought were solved, and, we fix them. But some prompt is supposedly going to replace understanding of your infra?! Hardly.

But you'll save money for this quarter. Past that is definitely up for discussion.... With your shareholders.

This seems very obvious to literally any one that is half competent at actual engineering.

It's just a buzz word but sadly it will (And already has) effected real engineers :(

> "Prompt engineers" will tell you that some specific ways of prompting some specific models will result in a "better result"... without any criteria for what a "better result" might signify.

That's what evals are for. The best developers working on LLM applications are the ones who are addressing the problem described in this quote. Here's a recent thread about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44430117

[flagged]

In my org they told us clearly: either we will learn prompt engineering, or they will replace us with people who already know it.

Coding in general isn't engineering. Software engineering is a relatively boring administrative exercise and unless you just want to maximize your salary you should probably do everything you can to avoid a "software engineering" role.

I think as people get increasingly aware of the nebulous consistency of hosted LLMs, local models will become more valuable

This article seems like LinkedIn style controversy-bait, or is written from a place of extreme pedantry.

Evals can come pretty close to getting “deterministic” output from LLMs, and I’d argue that this is reasonably considered engineering.

You won’t get far without engineering if all you can do is prompt.