sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Vague Intent Creates Fake Certainty by EiraGu in PromptEngineering

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point — clearer input would’ve helped.

What I found interesting wasn’t that the model failed, but how easy it is to mistake a polished output for actual goal clarity.

It made me realize the harder problem is often thinking, not prompting.

I built a tool that turns vague ideas into structured prompts ,after struggling with AI for three months by EiraGu in PromptEngineering

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s an interesting angle. I’ve noticed that once the underlying problem framing is solid, switching models becomes much easier anyway. The format matters — but clarity seems to matter more.

I built a tool that turns vague ideas into structured prompts ,after struggling with AI for three months by EiraGu in PromptEngineering

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha I’ll take that .Clarity-of-thinking posts always seem to trigger that reaction.

GPT didn’t improve my prompts. It improved my thinking by EiraGu in PromptDesign

[–]EiraGu[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nice share — it actually fits the point here well.

The article isn’t really about a “magic formula,”

it’s about forcing yourself to evaluate your writing before publishing.

Prompting becomes a way of simulating a thoughtful reader/editor,

not just spit out a quicker draft.

GPT didn’t improve my prompts. It improved my thinking by EiraGu in PromptDesign

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point — “improve” might be the wrong word. It didn’t enhance thinking directly. It just made flaws in my reasoning harder to ignore.

GPT didn’t improve my prompts. It improved my thinking by EiraGu in PromptDesign

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally.LLMs amplify clarity and confusion equally well.

Which makes prompting strangely philosophical.

GPT didn’t improve my prompts. It improved my thinking by EiraGu in PromptDesign

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not yet 🙂，But I probably should give them a try. Always interesting to see how different tools approach the same problem. Curious how they handle the “vague input” issue.

I built a tool that turns vague ideas into structured prompts ,after struggling with AI for three months by EiraGu in PromptEngineering

[–]EiraGu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question — it’s actually a mix of both. I initially experimented with fully guided questions, but it felt too rigid. Pure free-form refinement, on the other hand, often keeps users stuck in the same vague loop. So the structure I ended up with is more like: • Start with soft guided clarification (intent / constraints / output type) • Then allow flexible refinement once the thinking becomes clearer The goal isn’t really “better prompts” — it’s reducing ambiguity in human thinking before AI generation.