The title is all you need! Super cool!

Makes a really interesting case for disambiguating prompt 'engineering' from a possible 'prompt science'. The writing is very compelling. A helpful analogy presented in the paper is the idea that plant breeders were able to infer a lot of the internal structure of plants before genetic theory explained it. Not sure where I stand on this still but it's given me a lot to think about, especially w.r.t. 'aesthetic' concerns in ML research that bar 'prompting' from being seen as a legitimate research method. I do agree with the paper's claim that many important works in NLP are basically interfaces/structures upon prompting, and we shouldn't be afraid to more closely associate them with a 'prompt science'.