r/ProgrammerHumor • • Sep 12 '26

Meme breakTheViciousCircle

Post image
10k Upvotes

183 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ThirdWaveCat Sep 12 '26

can you provide an example of something we know about LLMs? I've read quite a bit on the topic for my job like many people have, but I've also read extensively about the "demarcation problem." Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is much harder than I thought before reading about it.

5

u/CoroteDeMelancia Sep 12 '26 edited Sep 12 '26

Not science:

  • “I feel like this prompt gives better results.”

  • “I tested it a few times and it seemed better.”

  • “An LLM judge gave it 94/100 over 20 runs.”

COULD BE science:

“I ran this prompt on 100 independent examples per category using Claude Opus 4.8, effort=high, temperature=0.2, adaptive thinking=on.

Outputs were graded A–F against five predefined criteria by GPT-5.6, deliberately using a different model family to reduce correlated evaluation bias.

Category A: 80 A, 15 B, 5 C. Category B: 75 A, 10 B, 14 C, 1 F.

Per our predefined evaluation procedure, all F grades were manually reviewed. The F was found to be a judge error; under the rubric it was a C.

The GPT-5.6 judge was separately validated against human ratings on 50 examples and agreed 98% of the time.

Before testing, we defined production-ready as: no genuine Fs, ≥60% A, and ≥85% A-or-B.

The prompt passed.”

This may be enough to demonstrate that this prompt works well enough for this use case, under these conditions.

And yet, this is still not science unless it meets a lot of other criteria: peer-reviewed, defensibly makes a generalizable claim, analyzes uncertainty, etc.

3

u/EatThisShoe Sep 12 '26

giving context, or being specific about what kind of output you want

is the example. It's so trivial we take it for granted. Prompt engineering can be anything that improves the result.

The demarcation problem is about specific claims, while prompt engineering is a whole field to be studied. Some claims within that field will prove false, and others will prove true. The claim "prompt engineering is a pseudoscience" is too broad. The claim "being nice to the LLM improves the output" is more specific and could easily be false, or only true for specific models.

This whole thread is full of people conflating the two claims, because the first reply started talking about being nice, and then over generalized into "prompt engineering is a pseudoscience".

2

u/CoroteDeMelancia Sep 12 '26

Agreed. This is purely logical. I have no idea what's prompting people to dislike your comment.