I thought I understood AI prompting.
Then Google dropped their 68-page engineering guide.
It reveals techniques that work across all LLMs
I dove deep into all 5 advanced methods.
Here's what will transform your AI outputs🧵
First, a confession:
Back when I started using AI, I wrote short prompts and wondered why outputs sucked.
Then I learnt.. optimal prompts? 21 words.
"Explain photosynthesis" (2 words) vs
"Explain photosynthesis process to middle-school student in single paragraph" (11 words)
This was just the beginning..
Now, what actually happens when you prompt AI?
The model predicts the next word based on patterns it learned.
Your prompt sets the pattern.
Better pattern = better prediction.
That's why prompts like "write about dogs" fail but specific prompts succeed.
Let me break this down...
Think of AI like a brilliant intern who needs clear instructions.
Vague prompt: Intern guesses what you want
Clear prompt: Intern knows exactly what to deliver
Google studied millions of prompts to find what makes them "clear."
Then I found how to 10X their output...
Temperature, Top-k, Top-p settings.
Secrets that that I'm sure most of us missed.
It's like driving a Ferrari in first gear.
Temperature = creativity/randomness dial.
Let me show what it means:
At 0 temp: AI picks most likely word every time
"The sky is [blue]" - always blue
At 0.9 temp : AI gets adventurous
"The sky is [crimson/infinite/electric]"
Top-k = limits word choices (default ~40)
Top-p = takes words until 90% probability
Now onto prompting techniques...
1. The 4-Pillar Framework shattered my approach.
Google says every prompt needs:
Persona (who AI should be)
Task (what to do)
Context (background info)
Format (how to respond)
I tested it immediately.
The difference was staggering...
My old prompt: "Explain blockchain"
My new 4-pillar prompt:
"You are a blockchain expert [PERSONA].
Explain how blockchain works [TASK].
For a 12-year-old audience [CONTEXT].
Use a simple analogy [FORMAT]."
The AI transformed from Wikipedia to favorite teacher.
2. Step-back prompting
It's a technique for improving the performance by prompting the LLM.
It first consider a general question related to the specific task at hand, and then feeding the answer to that general question into a subsequent prompt.
Example: This is a traditional prompt
We take a step-back in image 1. And then add that output into the prompt.
You can clearly see how much improved the output has gotten.
3. This led me to Chain of thought
Chain of Thought = forcing AI to show its work.
Like your math teacher demanded.
Advantages per Google:
- Low-effort, high impact
- Works on any LLM
- See reasoning steps
- Catch errors
- More robust across models
But here's the power move, few-shot CoT:
Give an example first:
"Q: When my brother was 2, I was double his age. Now I'm 40. How old is he?
A: Brother was 2, I was 4. Difference: 2 years. Now 40-2 = 38. Answer: 38.
Q: [Your question]
A: Let's think step by step..."
4. ReAct (reason & act)
It turns AI into an agent that can use tools.
Instead of just thinking, it can:
- Search the web
- Run calculations
- Call APIs
- Fetch data
The AI alternates between thinking and doing actions.
Like a human solving problems.
Here's how ReAct actually works:
Format: Thought → Action → Observation → Loop
To see the prompt in action, you gotta code.
Here's an example:
And here's how it actually get's the results.
5. APE
Automatic Prompt Engineering (APE) makes AI reach "near human-level" at writing prompts.
"Alleviates need for human input and enhances model performance" - Google guide
I was watching AI evolve in real-time.
The APE revelation went deeper.
The AI writes better prompts than humans.
Process: 1. "Generate 10 prompts for ordering a t-shirt " 2. AI creates 10 different versions 3. Test each on real documents 4. Pick the winner
Hidden in the guide:
"Use positive instructions: tell model what to do instead of what not to do"
I'd been saying: "Don't use jargon"
Should say: "Use simple language"
Everyone thinks Apple stopped innovating when Tim Cook became the CEO.
But 90% of Apple's value was created after Jobs died & if you understand Larry Greiner's Organizational Growth Model, you'll understand why Jobs asked Cook to replace him...
This isn't about Cook being lucky. There's a 1972 business theory that predicted exactly why Apple needed him to survive.
Larry Greiner noticed that every successful company goes through 5 predictable growth stages. And each stage requires completely different leadership skills.
Here's how it works:
Stage 1: Creativity - Founders build from zero with vision
Stage 2: Direction - Need for organized systems
Stage 3: Delegation - Scaling through managers
Stage 4: Coordination - Complex operations
Stage 5: Collaboration - Mature optimization
However, the problem is that each stage creates its own crisis that kills companies if not handled correctly.
Let me explain why...
> Stage 1 companies die from "leadership crisis."
Success creates complexity that overwhelms the founder's informal and hands-on style.
Without systems and processes, growth stops and the founder becomes the bottleneck for every decision.
> Stage 2 companies hit "autonomy crisis."
Too many rules kill innovation and speed. Middle managers feel micromanaged and talented people leave.
The company gets bureaucratic but lacks real delegation.
> Stage 3 creates "control crisis."
Delegated managers start pulling in different directions and there's no coordination between divisions.
The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
> Stage 4 brings "red tape crisis."
Too much coordination creates administrative overhead that slows everything down.
People spend more time in meetings than actually working.
> Stage 5 faces "growth crisis."
The company becomes so large and mature that finding new growth becomes nearly impossible.
Innovation slows, markets saturate, and disruption comes from smaller but hungrier competitors.
Companies that refuse to evolve leadership die at each transition.
This is why 70% of family businesses fail by the 2nd generation. The skills that built success become the ceiling that prevents growth.
Jobs was the perfect Stage 1 leader, but Cook was built for Stages 4-5.
> secretly build an AI coding assistant
> save $260M in costs and eliminate 4,500 years of developer work
> now quietly sell it to all the Fortune 500s
I got curious about their entire business model and dug deeper.
What I found:
First, let me give you some context:
Amazon had 30,000+ Java applications stuck on ancient versions. Technical debt from hell.
Manual migration would've taken 50+ developer-years just to plan.
They decided to bet everything on AI instead.
So they built Q Developer and tested it on their own infrastructure first.
30,000 production applications migrated.
15 minutes per app on average.
Completed in a few months.
Three guys tracking spam from a dorm room, built a $40B company that can delete any website from the internet.
Today it protects 1 in 5 websites and stops 44 billion attacks daily.
Because they give away for free what competitors charge $100K+ for.
Here's the insane story🧵
2009: Matthew Prince (lawyer teaching cyberlaw), Michelle Zatlyn (chemistry grad rejected by Google), and Lee Holloway (programmer who codes to death metal) have a problem.
They're tracking spam across 185 countries but can't stop it.
Homeland Security calls them.
"Do you have any idea how valuable the data you have is?"
Prince realizes: They have threat intelligence on every attack hitting thousands of websites.
They could see threats nobody else could.
But their business model would be insane.
Google's Street View cars collected 600GB of your personal emails, passwords, and private messages while taking pictures of your neighborhood.
60 million people across 30+ countries were surveilled without their consent for years.
Thread.
First, look at the list of data Google was stealing via your WiFi:
• Complete emails with full content
• Login passwords for your accounts
• Every website you visited
• Medical records and personal documents
• Private messages and chat logs
The question is how?
In 2007, Google started sending cars around the world to take pictures of streets.
But German privacy regulators got suspicious.
When they poked around, they discovered Google was secretly collecting every data transmitting over WiFi via these cars.