Last month, I attended an event in Google and it was all about AI. It was a 2-day workshop where we learned about prompting and AI agents. I only joined the first day which was like an introduction to prompt engineering. But there's a recording about the topics discussed on the 2nd day so even if I wasn't able to join, I could still learn from the recording.
I'm writing this post as a takeaway/notes from what I've learned about prompt engineering based on the event I joined and based on this whitepaper from Kaggle. I wouldn't say I'm an expert in this subject, so if you found anything that you think is not right, please let me know in the comments. In that way, I can expand my knowledge and learn from you too.
Prompt Engineering is probably a term you'll stumble upon when you tackle about AI. To understand its meaning, it's better to address what prompt is first.
In my understanding, prompts are the set of instructions or text that you feed to AI and in return, you'll get a response from AI about it. Good prompts will most likely generate good results, while bad prompts may produce unwanted results or hallucinations.
Prompt engineering is the process of tweaking and refining the prompts and then testing it. It's not just a simple method of giving an instruction to the AI - you'll have to keep refining it and take into consideration the model's behavior, the structure of your prompt and the settings you set. The purpose is to guide AI to produce high quality responses. Usually in each prompt, you need to generate more than a hundred tries and evaluate which is good on average. So prompt engineering basically involves a lot of experimentation and trial and error.
More tokens => longer text => slower response times => higher costs
Sometimes it's better to instruct AI to "keep it short and simple" rather than setting a "max output token".
Write a summary of this post (max 100 words).
Too short = maybe not good because it may leave out important details
Too long = maybe not good because it may include gibberish or repeat the same response
Temperature controls creativity.
Closer to 1 will work well for self consistency.
If you make it close to 0, 0 reduces diversity in the answer, which doesn't work for self consistency.
For less random answers, a low temperature (0~0.3) should be okay.
If you need right and wrong mix of answers, so temp should be closer to 0.7~1 but it will never give you a perfect answer but a decent answer.
Top-K: pick from top K most likely next words
K = 1 => greedy, will pick the most likely, very predictable word
K = 3 => will randomly choose from top 3 most likely words
K = 5 => more varied results
Top-P: pick from enough top words to reach P% certainty
Top-P = 0.9 => will give out 90% confidence
Top-P = 1 => include everything which will be fully random
Top-P = 0.1 => only the most confident few will be returned
| Setting | Effect | Example Scenarios For Usage |
|---|---|---|
| Low Top-K / Low Top-P | more predictable, safer answers | Math, problem solving |
| High Top-K / Low Top-P | creative, varied answers | Brainstorming, creative writing |
In combination with temperatures,
Low temperature + Low Top-K / Low Top-P => precise
High temperature + High Top-K / Low Top-P => creative
The simplest type of prompt. Zero shot means no examples are provided to the AI. You ask, and you'll be given a direct answer.
In this example, I asked the AI and got responded based on what I asked - to classify the review.
One-shot means you provide an example to the AI.
Few-shot means you provide multiple examples to the AI.
Providing examples will guide the AI's response.
The above is a simple example of One-shot prompting.
If I gave more examples, then it will become Few-shot prompting.
You usually use one-shot and/or few-shot when zero-shot fails.
When the pattern is easy to follow or has a fixed format, it's better to use one-shot.
When it becomes complex or you want variations, it's better to use few-shot.
Basically it's like how we do a majority vote.
Run the same prompt multiple times so you get multiple answers.
From there, you see which is the most "correct" answer by determining which is common.
This helps reduce randomness.
Sample Prompt:
I have 10,000 yen in my wallet. A friend borrowed 500 for a drink. I bought 5 donuts for 220 yen each. How much money do I have left?
✅ Try #1:
You have 8,400 yen left.
✅ Try #2:
You have 8,400 yen left.
❌ Try #3:
You have 9,280 yen left.
If you run this prompt only once, it may give a wrong or random answer (hallucination) but now that we've ran it multiple times, we get a correct answer based on the majority of the results.
To understand CoT better, we need to understand the Standard Prompting.
This is an example of Standard or Direct prompting.
The response is 45 which you would wonder how did it come up with that answer.
If you compute, it shouldn't arrive to this answer.
Standard prompting like this can give you an answer quickly but it's prone to hallucinations like these.
Applying CoT, we'll tweak a bit of the same prompt.
Now, the response I'm getting has a reasoning and calculation behind it which now makes sense.
It now arrived to the correct answer.
Notice the difference?
Just by changing the Return the answer directly. to Let's think step by step., I was able to get the answer I am looking for.
Although this will increase the tokens usage, the quality of the response is better than the standard prompting.
This could prevent hallucinations but not completely eliminate it.
It's like an advanced technique of CoT where there are many possible paths running in parallel. The image below best explains what ToT means.
source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.10601
It's useful for very complex tasks like planning or brainstorming, creative writing, and/or puzzles and riddles.
I tried to run this example prompt taken from this github.
Allows AI to think, do an action, observe, and repeat (but now with the new information from the first set of process) until there's an output.
Thought 1 -> Action 1 -> Observation 1 -> Thought 2 -> Action 2 -> Observation 2 -> … -> Output
Actions could involve searching the web, call APIs, run a code or anything.
This is useful for AI agents or assistants or any multi step tasks.
This example is a simplified example generated by ChatGPT but in reality, this could get complicated.
Question: How many books did author X write?
Thought: I need to find how many books Author X has written.
Action: Search “books by Author X”
Observation: Author X wrote 12 books.
Thought: Got it.
Final Answer: 12
We can also provide tools for AI to refer when performing actions.
You MUST use the code execution tool to generate and execute the code.)Thanks for reading!
See you around! じゃあ、またね！
All images are screenshots from the Kaggle notebook and the Google AI Studio (using Gemini) unless stated otherwise.
Most prompts are from the example in Kaggle notebooks - Day 1 laboratory.
All information here are from my notes and takeaways from the seminar and articles online like Prompt Engineering Guide.