{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigh4swipp6iybtcotfxlyvmohepz6luoynx2ahujgg3v4doymcvhe",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmca27mhg3c2"
  },
  "path": "/t/prompt-engineering-the-protocol-of-intent-the-theoretical-foundation/175880#post_8",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-20T13:57:52.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "Hi Lance, fair point. I think whatever effor we do to make prompting more clear to avoid missresponses is welcome. At the same time, I would not trust an LLM black box with all its so called hallucintatios (a fancy euphemism for a evidently wrong response) more than I trust a human. We should use LLM ¨thinking¨ capabilities to allow it to orchestrate and operate but ain doing so, we should narrow the decision space enough to get a 99,999% accuracy. I like having a trained pilot driving my plane but I dont want him to fly without following strict procedures that were built on years of experience, no matter how _good_ he seems to be. In the same way we should provide curated procedures so LLMs does not come up with hallucinated solutions that are too far from a safety envelope. There is always room for calling that creativite and use it for our benefit but when thinking on agentic AI driving real processes, we should be more cautious. I would not like a blackbox desinging solutions from first principles every time i ask for a task and hoping the prompt is good enough to avoid miss solutions.",
  "title": "Prompt Engineering - The Protocol of Intent: The Theoretical Foundation"
}