I don’t think that “prompt engineering” is quite the same thing as clearly specifying the problem. If I’m using a magic AI code-writing companion or asking an actual human to write code for me, I need to define the problem well enough if I want any expectation of getting _correct_ code.

A skilled human will distinguish themselves from a less skilled human by also thinking about the overall problem and helping make sure the specification is correct. This far, I have not seen an AI meet that bar unless the problem is something well-covered already on the web.

I have seen ChatGPT (3.5 and 4) output code that is syntactically correct, executes without errors, and does the wrong things in ways that are not entirely obvious to me until I read the docs myself.

> helping make sure the specification is correct. This far, I have not seen an AI meet that bar

I've only used Bard so far, but indeed, it has never replied to my question with a clarifying question. Only with a statement. This seems like an obvious evolution of the chatbot concept...

To be fair, I had to read the postgresql docs and interpret the answer to figure out what the _laiq was actually asking.

edit: I guess GPT-4 has better reading comprension than me!