⚠️ サービスステータス: お問い合わせやフィードバックは、こちらまで https://x.com/fer_hui14457WeChat: Sxoxoxxo
このツールはいかがですか?コーヒーをおごる
← Back to all posts
目录

title: "Lost in AI Prompts? What 'Google Best Practices' Actually Look Like in Practice" date: "2024-07-28" excerpt: "Let's be honest, writing good AI prompts is harder than it looks. I stumbled onto this agent claiming to use 'Google best practices' and thought, 'Okay, intriguing.' Here's what I found – and why it might save you a lot of head-scratching."

Lost in AI Prompts? What 'Google Best Practices' Actually Look Like in Practice

We've all been there, right? Staring at a blank cursor, trying to conjure the perfect string of words to get the AI to do exactly what you want. You tweak a word here, add a phrase there, hit generate, and... well, it's close, but not quite. Or maybe it's miles off. The art of prompt engineering is less 'art' and more 'frustrating trial and error' for most of us. You try to find the best way to write prompts, searching for how to get better results from AI. It feels like there should be a method, a blueprint, something more reliable than just guessing.

That's why when I saw something pop up that mentioned "Google engineer best practices" for generating prompts, I was cautiously optimistic. Google's got some smart folks; if they've figured out a systematic way to talk to these models, that's worth a look. The tool in question is an agent you can find over at http://textimagecraft.com/zh/google/prompt.

My first thought, I'll admit, was a bit cynical. Another prompt generator? The internet is full of them, mostly spitting out variations of "act as an expert..." followed by a vague task. But the 'best practices' hook got me. Does it actually do anything different? Can it genuinely help someone write better prompts, especially the kind that needs structure or specific constraints?

What I found is that it attempts to guide you through building a prompt piece by piece, sort of like filling out a smart form based on those underlying principles. Instead of just asking "What do you want?", it prompts you for things like the desired format, the target audience, the specific constraints, the role you want the AI to take (if any), and the necessary context. It's not just a simple template; it feels like it's trying to implement a methodology.

Think about the advice Google itself often gives about writing effective prompts: be specific, provide context, clarify the output format, iterate. This agent seems built around those ideas. It pushes you to think about elements you might forget when you're just winging it. For someone trying to master AI prompts and move beyond basic queries, this structured approach is key. It's less about giving you a fish and more about teaching you how to structure your query according to proven patterns.

Does it generate perfect prompts every time? Of course not. AI is still AI. But does it make the process more intentional, more repeatable, and significantly less based on pure luck? Yes, I think it does. It forces you to define the parameters clearly, which in turn helps the model understand exactly what you're asking for. This is crucial for getting higher quality, more predictable results from the AI.

Compared to many generic prompt tools out there, which often just offer simple fill-in-the-blanks or collections of pre-written prompts (that may or may not be relevant), this one feels like it's trying to integrate a deeper understanding of why certain prompts work better than others. It’s a practical application of prompt writing tips sourced from places that understand how these large language models function at a fundamental level.

If you've been struggling with inconsistency in your AI outputs, or if you feel like you're spending too much time tweaking and re-rolling prompts, spending a few minutes with this agent might be worth your while. It's a peek behind the curtain at how a more systematic approach, based on solid principles like those outlined by experienced engineers, can make a real difference in your daily interactions with AI. It’s not magic, but it feels a lot closer to a reliable process than just hoping for the best. It could be a valuable addition to your toolkit for improving AI output quality.