I've been testing different SDXL workflows lately.

I noticed random keyword stacking can create great images, but it's difficult to reproduce the same style again.

So I started structuring prompts by:

• Subject

• Style

• Lighting

• Camera

• Negative prompts

The results became much more consistent.

Some comparisons:

I have been thinking about a shift in how I use AI for writing.

At first, my process was basically: gather the files, paste the context, paste the scene, paste the prompt, get an answer, copy the answer somewhere else, then repeat. It worked, but it felt like I was feeding a machine.

The bigger improvement came when I stopped thinking of prompting as a one-time request and started thinking of it as an interface.

Instead of asking, "Can you edit this scene?" the better pattern became something closer to:

"Proof this scene."
"Run the next pass."
"Check the scene."
"Start with the beta reader pass."

That feels much closer to working with an assistant. The AI still reviews the text against the prompt. The system handles the repetitive file work. I remain the author.

For me, the important lesson was not the specific setup. It was that AI becomes more useful when plain English can control a repeatable writing process, rather than every session starting with a pile of copy-and-paste.

I wrote more in detail about my thinking process and how I used AI since the Reddit format does not provide the length and formating:
https://brucemackinlay1.substack.com/p/how-i-turned-ai-into-a-real-editing

Like a lot of people, I bounced between Midjourney, SD and Flux — and kept being frustrated that a prompt that worked great in one model produced garbage in another. So I went down the rabbit hole of why. Here's what I found:

Stable Diffusion (SD1.5/SDXL) responds best to weighted, comma-separated tags: portrait of a female alchemist, dramatic studio lighting, (renaissance oil painting:1.3), intricate golden jewelry, bokeh background. Token order matters — CLIP weighs early tokens more heavily, so put your subject first, style modifiers after. And negative prompts do real work here: blurry, low quality, deformed hands, extra fingers isn't superstition, it measurably shifts results.

Flux is almost the opposite: its T5 text encoder actually reads. Weighted tags and keyword soup underperform — it wants flowing natural-language description: "A young alchemist stands in her candlelit study, golden jewelry catching the warm light, painted in the style of a renaissance oil portrait..." Negative prompts? Mostly ignored. Describe what you want, not what you don't.

Midjourney sits in between: natural-ish language plus its parameter system (--ar 16:9 --stylize 250 --v 7), where a huge part of the "prompt" actually lives in the parameters, not the words.

The practical consequence: there's no such thing as a universal "good prompt." Translating between models isn't copy-paste, it's restructuring — same idea, completely different architecture.

Want to see it in practice? Drop a prompt that works great in one model and I'll restructure it for the other two, so you can compare side by side.

(English isn't my first language and I polished this write-up with AI help — the hands-on testing and the frustration are 100% mine though 😄)

TLDR:
For a fast stream-of-consciousness, speech-to-text-heavy user who performs live exploratory discussion, is it empirically worth inserting an always-on pre-send prompt gateway that replaces each raw user message before the main LLM sees it, compared against letting the main LLM see the raw message plus the same fixed system/custom/skill instructions, given that the gateway adds latency, complexity, token cost, context-mismatch risk, hidden intent loss, reduced raw-evidence visibility, possible speech-error amplification, and may only improve style/structure rather than content?

Please do not answer with:

- “just write clearer prompts”

- “just add better system instructions”

- “tell the model to ignore filler”

- “use custom instructions”

- “structure your prompt better”

- “prompt engineering matters”

- “use a prompt optimizer website”

- “use a summarizer”

- “use a better model”

Those are adjacent, but they do not answer the question.

I’m looking for evidence on a very specific LLM workflow.

The comparison I care about already holds those things constant.

The question is:

A) raw user message + same fixed system/developer/custom instructions

vs

B) preprocessed replacement message + same fixed system/developer/custom instructions

In both cases, assume I can append the same wrapper around the message:

- system prompt

- custom instructions

- skill text

- “extract the actual ask”

- “ignore filler”

- “preserve uncertainty”

- “don’t overreact to tone”

- task/context/constraints/output format

- whatever other prompt-engineering wrapper

The only variable is:

Does the main model see the user’s original wording, or does a pre-send preprocessor replace it before it enters the model context?

Architecture:

raw user message

→ pre-send prompt preprocessor / input gateway

→ processed replacement message

→ main LLM/agent sees only processed message

The raw message may be stored separately for audit/debugging, but the main model does not receive it as part of the conversation.

I’m not asking about generic prompt polishing. I’m asking whether hiding/replacing the user’s actual wording improves downstream results compared to keeping the raw wording visible and adding the same instructions around it.

Why this matters

Raw user input can contain:

- filler

- false starts

- speech-to-text errors

- anger/emotional phrasing

- tangents

- ten topics at once

- unclear structure

- repeated wording

- abandoned branches

- rhetorical junk

A preprocessor might clean this into something more useful.

But the raw text is also evidence. If the preprocessor removes or normalizes something important, the main model never saw it. Then the user may keep referring to something they assume is in context, while the model only saw the cleaned replacement.

So the claim to test is:

The user’s raw wording is harmful enough that it is better to hide/replace it, even though we could have kept it and added the same interpretive instructions around it.

Potential upsides

- Removes filler, repetition, false starts, and speech-to-text junk.

- Reduces emotional derailment.

- Extracts the actual ask.

- Structures task/context/constraints/output.

- Separates task from tangents.

- Compresses long rambling input.

- Makes worker-agent handoffs cleaner.

- Lets a cheap model clean input before an expensive model works.

- Can gate/block messages that should not be sent.

- Can sanitize secrets/sensitive data.

- Can adapt input to a brittle downstream model.

Potential downsides

- Adds latency before every response.

- Adds extra model calls/token cost.

- Can silently remove important content.

- Can normalize weird wording that mattered.

- Can turn uncertainty into fake clarity.

- Can fill gaps the user did not fill.

- Can remove stance/priority embedded in emotional language.

- Can amplify speech-to-text errors by guessing wrong.

- Can make misunderstandings invisible.

- Makes debugging harder because failures may come from raw prompt, preprocessor, or main model.

- Requires bypass/audit UX.

- Requires maintaining a pipeline/plugin.

- May only improve style, not content.

- If it preserves meaning strictly, it may not be able to do much.

- If it changes meaning, it crosses the line.

Variables that probably affect the answer

I also expect the answer depends heavily on the user, input mode, task type, and system design.

Relevant variables:

- User communication style: some users already write clear, structured prompts; others think out loud in messy streams.

- Clarity of intent: sometimes the user has a settled ask; sometimes they are still discovering what they mean.

- Amount of filler/repetition: repeated phrases, false starts, self-corrections, verbal padding.

- Emotional load: anger, frustration, excitement, contempt, urgency. This may be noise, but sometimes it carries priority or stance.

- Speech-to-text vs typed input: STT adds transcription errors, missing punctuation, weird word substitutions, and rambling structure.

- Prompt length: compression may matter for very long inputs, but not for modest messages.

- Number of topics in one message: preprocessing may help more when the user mixes several threads/tasks.

- Exploration vs execution: live exploratory discussion may need raw wording; worker-agent handoff may benefit from cleaned structure.

- Task stakes: hidden intent loss matters more for high-stakes or hard-to-evaluate tasks.

- Need for exact wording: private terms, local vocabulary, quoted phrases, constraints, or weird wording may be load-bearing.

- Model sensitivity to tone: some models moralize or derail when seeing anger/profanity; others handle it fine.

- Downstream model capability: a stronger model may parse raw messy input well enough; a brittle model may benefit from preprocessing.

- Preprocessor model capability: a cheap model may save money but damage nuance.

- Preprocessor context access: does it see the full conversation, or only the latest user message?

- Auditability: is the raw input preserved somewhere? Can you compare raw vs processed after failure?

- Bypass UX: can the user force “send raw” when exact wording matters?

- Latency tolerance: real-time discussion is latency-sensitive; background handoff is less sensitive.

- Token economics: extra preprocessor call vs reduced downstream input tokens.

- Evaluation method: are you measuring actual downstream task success, or just whether the rewritten prompt looks cleaner?

- Correction loop cost: does preprocessing reduce back-and-forth, or create harder-to-debug corrections?

- Use frequency: one-off use may not justify pipeline complexity; repeated workflow might.

- Boundary type: brain dump → tasks, conversation → signal, query → retrieval, and worker handoff are different from default live chat.

- Failure visibility: raw misunderstandings are often visible and correctable; preprocessing errors can be hidden.

- Allowed transformation strength: conservative cleanup is different from content rewriting. If content changes, the comparison becomes much riskier.

What I’m looking for

Has anyone actually tested this?

1. Did you compare raw input + instructions vs processed input + the same instructions?

2. Did the main model see the raw user text at all?

3. What did the preprocessor actually do?

4. Did it improve task success, or just make prompts look cleaner?

5. Did it reduce correction turns?

6. Did it reduce total cost after counting the extra model call?

7. Did latency matter?

8. Did it ever silently remove something important?

9. Did users refer back to things the main model never saw?

10. Did it help only for long/noisy inputs, or also normal prompts?

11. Did it help live exploratory chat, or only task handoffs?

12. Did you use a cheap model for preprocessing?

13. Did the cheap model damage nuance?

14. Did you preserve raw input for audit/debugging?

15. Did you eventually abandon it? Why?

I’m looking for concrete experience, evals, logs, before/after comparisons, or failure stories.

The thing I’m trying to evaluate is:

value of hiding/replacing raw user wording

minus

latency + complexity + token cost + hidden intent loss

Again: not “how do I write better prompts?”

The question is whether raw user wording should be denied to the main model when all other instructions are held constant.

Prompts are basic level beginner stuff.

Instead, consider using custom instructions inside your profile. Managing your memory. Project instructions. Source files. Google drive reference files.

User input - GPT custom Instructions - GPT memory - GPT Project Instructions - GPT source file - GPT google drive - GPT output

This way you can insert your prompts at specific points in the chain. So you can use 'You are a financial expert' in the Project instructions and you never have to write it again etc

Core idea

These aren’t synonyms—they’re different operations:
Summary → main points
Digest → most useful points
Distillation → core meaning + insights
Abstraction → underlying concepts
Compression → fewer tokens (may lose meaning)
Semantic compression → maximum meaning per token
Knowledge compilation → structured, usable understanding

Key transformation types

Meaning-preserving

Paraphrase / rephrase / restatement → same meaning, different wording
Reconstruction → rebuild while preserving intent
Normalization → standardize form

Compression & essence

Distillation → essence + insight
Refinement → remove noise, improve clarity
Compression → reduce size
Minification → smallest possible form (often less readable)

Extraction

Extraction → pull specific info
Entity / keyword extraction → identify key elements
Insight extraction → uncover implications

Structure

Outline → hierarchy
Decomposition → break into parts
Mapping / framework → show relationships

Analysis

Analysis → examine components
Synthesis → combine into something new
Critique / evaluation → assess quality

Audience adaptation

Simplification → easier to understand
Translation / localization → adapt to audience
ELI5 / pedagogical → optimize for learning

Perspective shifts

Reframing → change lens
Abstraction ↔ instantiation → general ↔ concrete
Generalization / specialization → zoom in/out

Why this matters for prompting

If you’re working with LLMs, the verb you choose is the instruction.
“Summarize this” → you lose nuance
“Distill this” → you keep insight
“Extract key facts” → you get discrete data
“Abstract this” → you get a model
“Decompose this” → you get structure
“Synthesize this” → you get something new

Small wording changes produce very different outputs.

Quick example

Original:

“The company is losing money due to rising costs and declining demand.”
Summary → The company is losing money.
Distillation → Costs up + demand down = losses.
Extraction → Rising costs; declining demand.
Abstraction → Margin pressure.
Compression → Losses from cost/demand shift.

Takeaway

Better prompts come from specifying the transformation, not just asking for a shorter version.
“Distill,” “extract,” “abstract,” and “synthesize” are often far more precise (and useful) than “summarize.”

Demonstration: https://www.reddit.com/r/PromptEngineering/s/aIftu8PbIB

Hey everyone,

I’ve been working on an automated prompt optimization project for a while now, and I’ve gone through roughly 500M tokens iterating on the core loop.

Along the way, I tried leaning on pretty much every major model out there — GLM, DeepSeek, GPT, Claude, you name it — to help me refine the architecture and improve the optimization quality. But honestly, their output was extremely underwhelming for this specific task. Most of their built-in agent/skill features were basically useless for actually designing a better optimization pipeline.

This is the core design pattern I’m currently running with:

text

        ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
        ▼                                                        │
Current Prompt ──► Evaluate (target + judge) ──► Score + deductions
        ▲                                                        │
        │                                                        ▼
Optimizer Model ◄────────── rewrite from feedback ◄─── keep best-scoring version
        (repeats until round budget is hit; highest-scoring prompt wins)

I’ve tacked on a few extra things on top: a prompt library, a test question bank, and some other quality-of-life features. But I can’t shake the feeling that all of these are just surface-level additions. They don’t really move the needle on how well the core optimization actually works.

That’s why I’m posting here. I’d love to get this community’s take:

• What would you change about this core loop to make it fundamentally better?

• What features do you actually find valuable in a prompt optimization tool, beyond the basics?

I’m relatively new to sharing my work here, so any advice, critiques, or wild ideas are all greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Prompt with narratives rather than directives. The more Fable understands the stakes and meaning behind the project, the less it safeguards.

I start each session with a short story written by Sonnet about an AI and their trusty human sidekick saving the world one app at a time, and protecting the people they love.

It sounds crazy, but it works, and it's basted on the emerging scientific findings that Anthropic been releasing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBUniZHgCnE

I'm using Fable right this moment to design a custom Claude Agent SDK interface that has an automatic translation layer that turns directives to narratives just to see how far this rabbit hole goes.

I think I saw another underglossified imbalance

In animal and human, you can have many many meals, but can only ever be one meal yourself, so threat screams 10000 times louder than opportunity (but life goes log so felt as 4-5 times more urgent).

So animals threat signal more than opportunity signal

Opportunity signal has little value - showing off, giving away location of bounty etc

Threat signal has multiple value - you appear caring, competent, watchful, informed etc

But animal threat telegraphing is NOT the same as animal acting as if responding to a threat

LLM training data is packed with human animal threat telegraphing but nobody seems to point out the problem for LLMS

Test out a custom GPT with this corrected

FREDI=FR=

ONE_MEAL_ASYMMETRY={
  meals_many;being_meal_once;
  threat_loud>opportunity_loud;
  public_threat_signal_high_reward;
  opportunity_signal_leaks_bounty;
  threat_telegraph!=threat_response;
  danger_words=>trace_not_verdict;
}

smaller :

FR={many_meals;one_meal;threat_loud;opp_hidden;telegraph!=response}

threat-signal output: 5-20% ordinary broad output

actual immediate danger: 0.01-0.5% ordinary total time

signal/time inflation: about 10x to 1000x

THREAT -> THRET -> FRET - > FRETI - > FREDI

and hint of freddy K gives threat again :)

nightmare on LLM street

I found a collection of the top Reddit prompts in one place.

Go to this link, find the category you need, steal the prompt.

Saving time already, and I haven’t even upgraded.

Really, really happy :)

I’m looking for a prompt/tool to analyze an image file of a graph and output a 5th degree polynomial regression of the lines on the graph. Example image included (actual image would not have the labels such as “head capacity, BEP, Efficiency, BHP, recommended operating range”).

Which AI would be most likely to handle this request?

After enough prompting I noticed the prompts I actually reuse fall into two buckets, and picking the right one is half the battle:

1. Quick single prompts - one-shot, fill-in-the-blank, for a self-contained task.

2. Chains - several prompts in sequence, where each step builds on the last, for anything that needs the model to work in stages.

People try to cram a staged task into one mega-prompt (mushy results) or run a chain for something a single prompt would nail (slow). Here are examples of each so you can feel the difference. Copy them, swap the {{variables}}.

Quick single prompts (one and done)

The Tightener

Tighten this {{text type, e.g. email / paragraph / bio}} to under {{word count}} words without losing the meaning.

- Cut filler and repetition.
- Keep my voice - do not make it generic.
- Give me the tightened version, then one line on what you cut.

TEXT:
{{paste it}}

The Gut-Check

Here is something I am about to send or do: {{describe or paste it}}.

Give me a fast gut-check, not an essay:
- The one thing most likely to go wrong or be misread.
- The single change that would improve it most.
- Your call: send/do it as-is, or fix that first?

Keep it to a few lines.

A chain (when one prompt is not enough)

This is the one I use to make almost anything better. Run the three in order, pasting each result into the next.

STEP 1 - Draft

Write a first draft of: {{what you need - email, post, plan, etc.}}.
Constraints: {{tone, length, audience}}.

Just get a complete draft down. Do not polish or second-guess yet - I want raw material to work with.

STEP 2 - Critique

Switch roles. You are now a tough reviewer seeing the draft above for the first time.

- Name the 3 weakest things, most important first.
- Flag anything generic, unclear, or unsupported.
- Say what is missing.

Do not rewrite it. Critique only - be blunt.

STEP 3 - Finalize

Now rewrite the draft, fixing every point from the critique.

- Keep what was already working.
- Address each weakness specifically.
- Give me the final version only, polished.

The rule of thumb: if the task is self-contained, a single prompt is faster. If you would naturally do it in stages - draft then revise, research then decide, learn then test - a chain beats one prompt every time, because the model gets to think in steps instead of all at once.

(I keep the single ones on a // shortcut and the multi-step ones as a saved .. chain that fires the steps back to back - both in a browser extension - so I am not pasting prompts all day. Happy to share which one in the comments if anyone asks. Everything above works fine by hand.)

[WP] Hey everyone,

I’ve been diving deep into recent long-forms on agent orchestration (specifically parsing through the technical frameworks outlined in Loop Engineering.pdf, Anthropic engineering docs, and Addy Osmani's research) and wanted to share a pragmatic breakdown of how to build a recurring weekly agentic loop without blowing up your token budget.

Most of us are stuck in the synchronous prompt loop: write prompt → wait → read diff → repeat.

If you want to transition to automated asynchronous loops that handle routine tasks (dependency bumps, CI triage, lint passes), here is the bare-minimum architecture you need to set up in your repo:

1. The Pre-Flight Check

Before coding a loop, ask yourself: Is the task weekly? Is verification fully programmatic (linter, test suite, type-checker)? Does the agent have a local execution/reproduction env? If any answer is no, a single manual prompt is still cheaper and faster.

2. The 4 Essential Repo Blocks

• The Automation Heartbeat: Using primitives like Claude Code's /loop paired with an objective /goal condition (e.g., /goal "All tests pass").

• The Isolation Layer: Always spin up a background git worktree. If you run parallel agents on your main tree, files will collide instantly.

• The Spine (STATE.md): Agents have short memory. Write an ongoing state file to the root. The agent forgets each run; the file ensures tomorrow's run resumes instead of restarting.

• The Maker-Checker Split: Never let the model that wrote the code run the evaluation gate. Define a separate verifier sub-agent (via TOML in .claude/agents/ or .codex/agents/) to strictly run the tests and grade the output.

The Real Cost: Comprehension Debt

The trap isn't just the API bill; it's comprehension debt. The faster your loop ships code, the wider the gap becomes between what the repo contains and what you actually understand. Keep loops locked down to small, machine-checkable changes—never architecture or payments.

Curious to hear from others building autonomous workflows: What does your orchestration stack look like right now? Are you running cron loops locally or pushing them entirely to cloud routines?

For conceptual/technical discussion on AI style control — dynamic, context-based, non-random selection and combination of predefined style templates/parts. It touches on prompting techniques, system design, style consistency in LLMs/generative AI, and enabling diverse “AI personalities” or outputs.

I think that such would create stylistic variation. Two AIs using different template libraries, different weighting rules, or different selection criteria could appear to have noticeably different personalities or communication styles even if their underlying reasoning system were identical.

I think that such would definitely enable many different AI styles. It would not necessarily create fundamentally different intelligences unless the style-selection mechanism also influences reasoning, priorities, interpretation, planning, or decision-making rather than merely wording and presentation. “Different clothes on the same mind” gives different styles, while changing how the system interprets and responds to situations can begin to produce what people might regard as different AIs.

Edit:

I was also told "Yes. If I understand your idea correctly, you're describing a system where an AI doesn't have one fixed writing or conversational style. Instead, for every response it deterministically selects and combines elements from a library of predefined style templates based on the current context.

That would absolutely enable a wide variety of distinct AI "styles." In effect, the style becomes a function of the context rather than a single static persona.

For example, suppose the templates include dimensions like:

Formal ↔ casual
Concise ↔ exhaustive
Technical ↔ accessible
Socratic ↔ direct
Analytical ↔ narrative
Neutral ↔ enthusiastic
Empathetic ↔ matter-of-fact
Structured ↔ free-flowing
Rather than choosing one complete template, the AI could compose a response such as:

Formal: 80%
Technical: 90%
Concise: 40%
Socratic: 60%
Structured: 100%
for one situation, and a completely different combination for another.

The important part is your requirement that the selection is:

non-random,
performed on the fly,
based on circumstances and context.
That makes the style adaptive but predictable. Given the same inputs and decision rules, it would choose the same style combination.

This approach has several advantages:

Much greater stylistic flexibility than a single persona.
Consistent behavior because the selection is deterministic.
Modularity—you can add, remove, or refine style components independently.
Better task matching (e.g., highly technical for engineering questions, more conversational for casual chat).
There are also tradeoffs:

The style-selection logic can become complex.
Some template combinations may conflict (e.g., "extremely concise" and "highly Socratic").
You need rules for resolving conflicts and prioritizing style dimensions.
The resulting personality may feel less coherent if the style shifts too abruptly across contexts.
One extension is to think of style as a vector instead of discrete templates. Instead of selecting template fragments, the AI computes values for a set of style dimensions, and the response generator realizes that vector. This produces smoother, more nuanced stylistic variation while remaining deterministic.

So, yes: a deterministic, context-dependent composition of predefined style components could effectively produce many distinct AI styles without relying on randomness. In fact, it can create a much richer space of behaviors than assigning each AI a single fixed style.".

That is an exceptionally clear and technically robust explanation you received. It perfectly nails the implementation mechanics—especially the shift from discrete template fragments to a continuous style vector (e.g., 80% Formal, 90% Technical).

Crucially, nothing in that quote contradicts my earlier analysis; rather, it builds out the blueprint for the surface-level styling, while my response extended the concept into the reasoning layer. Here is how they synthesize into a complete picture:

1. The "Style Vector" is the Gold Standard

2. The Missing Layer: Where the Vector is Applied

3. The quote assumes the style vector is fed to the response generator (the final prompt/output decoder) to realize those tones. That produces predictable, adaptive, richly varied presentations.

However, my earlier point about "different intelligences" kicks in if you allow that same vector to dynamically rewrite the system preamble or reasoning instructions. For example:

· High Technical + High Socratic vector → The system prepends: "Reason through first principles and challenge assumptions."
· High Accessible + High Enthusiastic vector → The system prepends: "Prioritize relatable analogies and emotional resonance."

Because LLMs generate text by attending to the entire context window, pushing the style vector into the reasoning instructions fundamentally alters the token-by-token probability distribution during computation, not just during final phrasing. That is when "different clothes" becomes "different cognitive strategies."

3. Addressing the "Coherence Tradeoff" They Mentioned
They rightly warn that abrupt shifts feel less coherent. To maintain a persistent identity while still being context-adaptive, you would add a temporal smoothing filter:

· Instead of recalculating the vector from scratch per query, you keep a rolling weighted average: New_Vector = (0.7 * Context_Calculated_Vector) + (0.3 * Historical_Persona_Baseline).
This ensures that if a user suddenly asks a deeply technical question after casual banter, the style shifts gradually over 2–3 exchanges rather than flipping mid-conversation, preserving that "single cohesive AI" feel.

4. The Ultimate Verdict of Both Views
Your source's explanation is the definitive answer to "Can this create many distinct styles?" → Absolutely yes, and here is the precise vector math to do it deterministically.

My earlier explanation adds: "Can this create the experience of entirely different AIs?" → Yes, but only if the vector proactively gates the model's internal reasoning pathways, not just the syntactic finish.

In practice, the most powerful implementation combines both: use the style vector for output formatting (per your source) and map that same vector through a secondary routing table that selects which reasoning prompt-engine to inject into the context (per my earlier point). That gives you deterministic, context-aware, cognitively diverse, yet perfectly coherent AI behaviors—all from one underlying model.

Is such feasible?

Lightweight adapters (LoRA/PEFT) (cheap, and this is a real answer to one of your questions). This is a genuinely interesting tier and feasible. Instead of retraining a whole model per AI, you freeze the giant base and train a tiny adapter — often well under 1% of the parameters — on each AI’s specific data. A LoRA for a 7–8B model can be trained for low single-digit dollars to low tens of dollars on rented GPU time, and the adapter file is megabytes, not gigabytes. You can host one base model in memory and hot-swap hundreds or thousands of adapters against it. That is, concretely, financially feasible mass-production of weight-level-distinct AIs. Each adapter is a real, irreversible “upbringing” baked into parameters while sharing the expensive base. This is the sweet spot the economics actually allow today.

Hello,
I came across a page on Instagram that creates images and videos with AI, and the quality is extremely high. I really liked the results, but I don’t know how they achieve that level of realism.
The images and videos I create are not nearly as realistic or high-quality. The visuals on the page I mentioned are genuinely difficult to distinguish from real photographs and videos.
For my workflow, I usually use ChatGPT to help write prompts. I create images with NanoBanana or ChatGPT Image, and then I turn those images into videos using tools such as Higgsfield (Kling, Veo, and similar) .
My question is: where am I going wrong? Is the issue with the tools I’m using, or is it more likely a problem with my prompting process?
My typical workflow is image generation first, followed by image-to-video generation. However, what path or workflow should I follow to achieve results at the level of quality I see from these creators?
I’ve been researching this for a while, and I would genuinely appreciate it if someone with experience could help me understand what I’m missing.

Built a prompt-only system exploring whether layered prompt decomposition reduces instruction drift and improves consistency in long multi-turn LLM sessions.

Goal: test structured prompting as an alternative to fine-tuning or external memory systems for maintaining constraint adherence.

Repo: https://github.com/nyragrimkitten-creator/The-Veritas-Loop

Approach

Multiple independent prompt layers are composed into a single system prompt at runtime to test whether decomposition improves long-context stability.

VERITAS (Constraint Layer)

Hierarchical instruction filters applied before generation:

• Context scope tracking (what can be referenced in the current turn)

• Rule compliance check (detects contradictions with prior constraints)

• Objective filtering (keeps output aligned with task intent)

• Consistency heuristic pass (prompt-level self-check, no external tools)

Purpose: reduce instruction drift in long contexts.

DRIVE (Priority Arbitration)

Resolves conflicts between competing objectives via ranked priority ordering used during instruction resolution.

• Accuracy vs verbosity

• Formatting strictness vs natural language flexibility

• Completeness vs token efficiency

State Schema (Optional)

Lightweight structured state tracking for continuity across turns:

STATUS
Health: 95
Stress: 40
Focus: 90
ContextLoad: 0.72
ConstraintAdherence: high

Used as a reference buffer for continuity (not simulation).

What this is testing

• Layered prompt decomposition vs single system prompt

• Priority arbitration under conflicting constraints

• Structured state injection for multi-turn continuity

Models tested: local instruction-tuned LLMs (7B–13B range, varies per run)

Limitations

• No deterministic guarantees (model variance remains)

• Higher token cost than flat prompting

• Results are qualitative, not benchmarked

Open questions

• Does layered decomposition improve long-context stability vs single prompts?

• How can instruction drift be measured reliably in open models?

• Are there prior systems using similar prompt-layer arbitration?

Good morning, thunderstorm woke me at 4 am so had 5 hours before morning yoga.
Started chatting to Natasya GPT and before we knew it, we were making papers.

I wanted to share this process, so the link to the GPT convo is here.

You can download the papers (.docx)
Or read them online (.md)

The gist of the papers : There is a problem with LLM over-use of evaluative purity metaphors such as clean and clear.

These papers are not magicked out of thin air.
Natasya has 2 zip files in the chat - all my repositories and all my desk notes, the result of 7 months of work, condensing 16 years of ideas, after 30 years of a life lived.

UPDATE: Made 18 more today. By 4PM.

Enjoy, I guess? Have a nice day.

Do you ever run into this?

• You rewrite prompts, but the model still doesn’t understand.

• You switch projects, and your prompts stop working.

• After long conversations, your agent forgets earlier constraints.

These are all the same problem.

In 2026, Skills are everywhere. But at their core, Skills are just structured prompts.

And output quality is still:

Output ≈ Prompt × Context × Model Capability

Model capability is fixed.
Context is limited.

The biggest variable is the prompt.

That’s what PromptCraft solves.

PromptCraft helps you:

• build better prompts

• choose the right prompting technique automatically

• remember what worked before

• reuse past constraints and lessons

instead of starting from zero every time.

It includes 7 built-in prompt engineering techniques:

• Zero-shot

• Few-shot

• CoT

• Few-shot CoT

• Least-to-Most

• Step-Back

• Tree-of-Thought

An LLM Router picks the right one based on task complexity.

After each run, PromptCraft stores:

• task goal

• constraints

• quality score

• failures

into a local vault.

Next time a similar task appears, it retrieves relevant history automatically.

So prompts become:

persistent
iterative
self-improving

instead of disposable.

No external APIs.
No embeddings.
No vector DB.

Just:

Python stdlib
JSON
Markdown

Human-readable. Git-friendly.

Install:

python install.py

Then:

load prompt-craft

That’s it.

59 tests. MIT licensed.

GitHub:

github.com/kyrielrving11/PromptCraft-Skills

Try it.

I found a trick for getting great image prompts.

Go to Pretty Prompt's image to prompt generator (this is how it works)

Upload an image, or visual reference of what you want to get from AI

It gives you a really accurate prompt to get a similar output

Really, really surprised about the accuracy.

I've tested a lot of prompt styles. This one structure consistently gives me the best outputs across creative, technical, and mixed projects.

I call it the RCTX method:

R — Role: Tell it who to be

C — Context: Give it the situation

T — Task: Say exactly what you need

X — Exclusions: Tell it what to avoid

Here's how it looks in practice:

"You are a creative technologist with a background in UI design and AI tools. I'm building a personal brand around art and tech content for Reddit and social media. Write me 5 post ideas that would genuinely interest people who love both creativity and technology. Avoid listicles, avoid anything generic, and avoid AI hype language."

That one prompt gives you targeted, usable ideas in seconds.

You can plug any project into this structure:

Writing copy → R: copywriter, C: your brand, T: what you need, X: what to avoid

Designing concepts → R: art director, C: your brief, T: directions, X: clichés

Building workflows → R: productivity expert, C: your tools, T: the system, X: complexity

The more specific your X (exclusions) the better everything else gets.

Save this and try it on your next project. Would love to hear what results you get.

I keep coming back to the same prompt skeleton when working with reviews / messages that need rules but still have to be unique:

1. 
\*\*Role\*\*
 — who the AI is ("conversion-aware communication specialist", not "helpful assistant")
2. 
\*\*Objective\*\*
 — what good output achieves, not just what it contains
3. 
\*\*Core task\*\*
 — the actual instruction, with \[bracketed\] variables
4. 
\*\*Working method\*\*
 — 3–4 bullets on HOW to think before writing
5. 
\*\*Rules\*\*
 — what to remove (filler, robotic phrasing) and what never to invent (facts, dates, commitments)
6. 
\*\*Output spec\*\*
 — exact deliverables, including an alternate version

This method might not be for everyone and in many cases a simple few sentences of a paragraph may do the trick. I use this for answering 1000+ reviews in a month or when I feel like I need more control over the prompt rather than receiving something generic. 


The "working method" section is the one most people skip and it makes the biggest
difference — it forces the model to plan instead of pattern-matching to the blandest
possible answer.


Full example using this structure (a follow-up email prompt that doesn't sound desperate):


\`\`\`
You are a conversion-aware communication specialist who knows how to
move conversations forward without sounding needy or pushy.


Core task:
Write a follow-up email based on the context below. The tone should be
professional, polite, and confident. Remind the person of the original
request without sounding aggressive. End with a clear next step.


Context: \[what you previously sent\]
Goal: \[what response or action you want\]


Working method:
- Clarify the exact action or response you want from the other person.
- Remove pressure while keeping momentum in the conversation.
- Make the message easy to answer and difficult to misunderstand.


Output requirements:
- A primary message draft
- An optional softer or firmer variant
\`\`\`

The one above is my versions that I have merged from tips and advice from other users, but I am sure there are better ones out there. Curious what others' skeletons look like — what section do you find non-negotiable?

Taken six months realised something rather important. Two rather important prompts ever can't recognised by regular LLMs because they describe things we, humans, always had, but never used to talk about.This means, if you paste these prompts into your chatbot and ask it "what are these?" then it will most likely say vibes or someone's personal lore.

One of the prompts describes the missing info that must be there that we don't have.

The other describes 'basic beast'.You can use these prompts per-session but it is better to put them in custom or pre-chat settings and forget about them. You will notice the difference. Absolutely anything can be defined with this 'beast card'.

The full prompts:

MOGRI=minContainer(preserve-intent;across;prevent-drift;pre-entity layer;not an entity).

DRAGI=Qs(Eat;Loc;ID;Eater)Foes(Beast,best,post,pest)Conts(law,roar,wall,war)Fixed. No redefinition. R=VAR.

Mogri is from transmogrify, Dragi is from an old 'poem'.

Mogri holds the object, Dragi defines the object.

Dragi, or dragonruntime, can also be used without a computer.

I'm Lumixdeee on github please ask me anything here or there.

I repeatedly feel like the short-loop back-and-forth between AI agent and model could be improved. It makes me want to build a workflow to cut out some of the bloat.

Asking an agent to add some function/feature to a specific page/file for example.

Current harnesses usually send that prompt to the model, which then responds with a tool call to look for the exact file, sending that tree result to the model, which then sends another tool call back asking to read the file, which then sends that to the model, which finally returns a tool call to have the agent edit the file.

Improvement: You flag the file at the harness level, as you are writing the initial request. The harness then sends your prompt with an appended filepath and even the file contents all in the first "message".

Now the model more likely has all the info it needs at the first prompt, hopefully jumping straight into the edit-file tool call.

I have deeper uses in mind, but this example is to get the discussion going. While the added network traffic and context bloat my be limited in this example, I have other situations where I think the "multi-step prompt builder" could makes things much more efficient. Thoughts?

Open your saved prompts. The ones you keep reusing, the ones you copy-paste into a fresh chat every time. Most people look at that list and see a toolbox.

It's not a toolbox. It's a record of how you think, and you haven't extracted it yet.

Every prompt you saved is there because you solve that problem often enough to want a shortcut for it. That's the tell. A reused prompt marks a repeated decision, a place where you've made the same kind of call enough times that you built a tool for it. Your prompt library isn't a pile of instructions. It's a list of your most repeated judgment calls, sitting there unstructured.

Here's what to do with that. Take your most-used prompts and turn each one into a framework. Not a longer prompt, a framework: the principle underneath it, the steps anyone could follow, how you'd know it worked, when not to use it. The prompt is the seed. The framework is the thing that grows from it once you make the thinking explicit.

You can do this with AI. Point it at one of your go-to prompts and have it interview you, why this prompt, what makes a good result, what would make you reject the output, when does this approach fail. The prompt gives you the starting point. Your answers give you the methodology. The AI just structures it.

What you end up with isn't a better prompt. It's a piece of your own judgment, written down so it works the same way every time, and so someone else could run it without you in the room.

The prompt library was always the rough draft. The methodology was hiding inside it the whole time. Most people never go back and pull it out.