Here is my personal opinion about the questions I posed in this tweet:

---

I think that fine-tuning is still very valuable in many situations. I’ve done some more digging and I find that people who say that fine-tuning isn't useful are indeed often working on products where fine-tuning isn't likely to be useful:

• They are making developer tools - foundation models have been trained extensively on coding tasks.
• They are building foundation models and testing for the most general cases. But the foundation models themselves are also being trained for the most general cases.
• They are building a personal assistant that isn’t scoped to any type of domain or use case, and is essentially similar to the same folks building foundation models.

Another common pattern is that people often say this in earlier stages of their product development. One sign that folks are in really early stages is that they don’t have a domain-specific eval harness.

It’s impossible to fine-tune effectively without an eval system which can lead to writing off fine-tuning if you haven't completed this prerequisite. I think its impossible to improve your product without a good eval system in the long term, fine-tuning or not.

I think that you should do as much prompt engineering as possible before you fine-tune. But not for reasons you would think! The reasons for doing lots of prompt engineering is that its a great way to stress test your eval system!

If you find that prompt-engineering works fine (and you are systematically evaluating your product) then its fine to stop there. I'm a big believer in using the simplest approach to solving a problem. I just don't think you should write off fine-tuning just yet.