Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think these are two very separate concepts.

What we are mostly seeing when it comes to fine-tuning is making a model promptable. Models like LLaMA or the original GPT3 weren't promptable. They were fine-tuned with demonstration data that looks like a prompt input, prompt output.

See below: { "instruction": "What would be the output of the following JavaScript snippet?", "input": "let area = 6 * 5;\nlet radius = area / 3.14;", "output": "The output of the JavaScript snippet is the radius, which is 1.91." }, [1]

Prompt engineering is really just carefully designing what inputs and outputs on a prompt-ready model work best.

I highly recommend skimming this RLHF article and looking for the parts where it talks about demonstration data [2]

1: https://github.com/sahil280114/codealpaca/blob/master/data/c...

2: https://huyenchip.com/2023/05/02/rlhf.html




Prompt engineering and fine tuning are in many cases alternative ways to achieve the same goal. You claim that the "original GPT3" wasn't promptable. I'm unsure which version you refer to, but I'm guessing you refer to text-davinci-003 and it was definitely promptable. For one app I used prompt engineering to make it behave like a spirit talking through a ouija board. For another, I used prompt engineering to make it act like a dystopian search engine from the future. So, yeah, it's promptable.


Thanks for link 2 - it is worth a proper read! Read half of it already and it is very interesting and useful for understanding this.


Cheers!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: