[CobrastanJorji]

Yes, obviously a role involving complex communication while interacting with a multitude of perspectives, world views, assumptions, presumptions, etc needs to be called "engineer."

That is why I always call technical writers "documentation engineers," why I call diplomats "international engineers," why I call managers "team engineers," and why I call historians "hindsight engineers."

[w_for_wumbo]

I believe you're joking here, but I do think it'd be useful to have some engineering background in each of these domains. The number of miscommunications that happen in any domain, due to oversight, presumptions and assumptions is vast. At the very least the terminology will shape how we engage with it, so having an aspirational title like prompt engineer, may influence the level of rigor we apply to it.

[drw85]

I don't think that's the right direction to go in.

Despite needing much knowledge of how a planes inner workings function, a pilot is still a pilot and not an aircraft engineer.

Just because you know how human psychology works when it comes to making purchase decision and you are good at applying that to sell things, you're not a sales engineer.

Giving something a fake name, to make it seem more complicated or aspirational than it actually is makes you a bullshit engineer in my opinion.

[croon]

I think what you're describing is more commonly included under epistemology under philosophy, and I agree that it would be a useful background in each of those domains, but for some reason in the last few decades we have downgraded the humanities as less useful.

So Prompt Philosopher/Communicator?

[ml-anon]

it’s really unclear whether this is satire.