3xnl
Saying that a government/colonial construct where most of those tribes were forced into, doesn't/shouldn't represent them is beyond absurd. London represents them then? Or they are considered lost?
>Now, its important to note two things here. 1) many of these tribes, before colonialism, before the establishment of the contemporary west-african states, were in fact slave empires, and the reason they had such rich cultural products was for the same reason that western nations, at the time, did.
You are forgetting that most of those items can be traced to their indigenous owners. You prefer calling them tribes but they were in fact nations/kingdoms of their own that were forced into colonial constructs like Nigeria, so don't lie yourself that Nigeria is somehow trying to act like colonial Britain.
>2) that these objects should be stored in whatever facility can host them best. We all admit Nigeria is not as wealthy as the UK, so its entirely possible that the UK after returning perhaps, thousands of precious artifacts, worth an uncountable sum, a desperate government might, given the right circumstances, sell them, whereas the UK probably will not (at least not in the near future).
This would be amusing if it wasn't some sort of gaslighting. Yes Africa is poor, most states corrupt. But saying that UK should help them store those items, without their consent, items that they took by force. Wow
> Call me conservative if you like, but culturally important objects are often only designated as such the moment they are placed in a museum.
What does conservative even mean in this case? Aren't you just mixing neocolonialism with conservatism?
So why did the colonial plunderers think they are worth a trip from rural Nigeria, Benin, deep India to the Empire's capital if they were values at the time in their owners poor huts, shambas and valleys?
>Who knows if the former slave empire tribes of west Africa would've valued all the pieces so highly had they not been put on display.
You are really something.
Someone sits in India, creates a paint on their own without force. Thieves still it. After 200 years, you sit in your house to tell us that they didn't know what they created?
By the way, how do you think the plunderers discovered them? Or why do you think the owners at the time put in their time to create/preserve them until they were found? Is your talk of former slave empire tribes of West Africa aimed at a negating European colonial crimes?
>By "getting them back," these ethnic groups are merely reproducing the same order that they oppose, in fact they have completed, in a way, the colonial circuit, by becoming a mirror of the power that created them.
As I said above, the owners of those items can be traced.
Actually the paper does, but my issue is not papers, rather knowledge. The level of knowledge needed for something to be called engineering
And I have noticed your answers relate prompt engineering to software engineering/programming questions. But if you look at that OpenAI doc, even asking to summarise an article is prompt engineering.
> A great deal of the engineers that built the modern internet never got a formal degree. But they did get something better: real practical experience attained via tinkering.
We have a lot of carpenters, builders, mechanics with no formal education that we call Engineers in our everyday life without any qualm because of their knowledge and experience. Don't look at it only from the lens of software engineering.
I still maintain prompting an AI model doesn't need to be called engineering.
If you are a developer doing it through an API or whichever way, you still doing whatever you've been doing before prompting entered the chat.
Maybe the term will be justified in the future.
Side Note: This conversation led me to Wikipedia (noticed some search results along the way). This prompt business is already lit, I shouldn't have started it
> Language is not mathematics and constantly evolves. All you need to do is look up the etymology of the word to understand why your dissaproval is ultimately a waste of effort.
I have noticed from replies that term is already enjoyed by all stakeholders, so I have no energy, time or interest to show my worthless disapproval anywhere else. You should though look up how it came to be referred to as prompt engineering. You will be surprised
You can't compare the effort and knowledge
There are very many fields and activities that do just that but are not called Engineering.
If we go by that, Excel users should also be referred to as Excel Engineers,
My grandma can say she engineered Google search to give search results from her location.
> "Engineer" is a verb here, not a noun. It's perfectly valid to say "Prompt Engineering", since this is the same word used in 'The X was engineered to do Y' sentence. >
You guys are just looking for ways to make people feel like they are doing something big in prompting AI models for whatever tasks, even with custom instructions etc
I know the word Engineer can be used in various ways, "John engineered his way to premiership", "The way she engineered that deal" etc, if it's the way it's being used here fine then. There is a reason why graphic designers have never called themselves graphic engineers
> Anthropic also have their prompt engineering documentation - https://docs.anthropic.com/claude/docs/constructing-a-prompt - this article gives examples of bad and good prompts.
This just means that the phrase is already out there. Nothing more.