Taken to the extreme, a sufficiently broken down prompt is simply the code itself.

The whole point is to prompt less?

> Taken to the extreme, a sufficiently broken down prompt is simply the code itself

it is not. But the artifacts generated through the steps will be code. The last prompt will have most of the code supplied to it as the context.

No he is right, he is saying taken to the extreme. The point is the more and more specific you have to prompt, the more you are actually contributing to the result yourself and the less the model is

Yes but the build up isn't manual. You go patching prompts with responses until the final result. The last prompt will be almost the whole code complete, obviously.

Again, you are missing the "taken to the extreme".

What has happened to HN discourse recently?

Taking things to the extreme is rarely that useful in nuanced discussion though (it ignores that the optimal approach is rarely at the extremes).

I'm asking the same question. "taken to the extreme". What bullshit measurement is that?

A prompt is just a specification for an output. Code is just what we call a sufficiently detailed specification.

More practically, the whole point is to prompt enough to generate valid code.

Well now we get into information density and Komolgorov complexity. The more complicated your desired output program is, the more information you'll have to put in, ie, more complicated prompts.