<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Prompt-Engineering on Rishi's Blog</title><link>https://blog.bansalai.com/tags/prompt-engineering/</link><description>Recent content in Prompt-Engineering on Rishi's Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><copyright>&amp;copy; 2026 Rishi Bansal</copyright><lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.bansalai.com/tags/prompt-engineering/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Self-Tuning Prompts: Adapting Karpathy's Autoresearch Loop to Writing Quality</title><link>https://blog.bansalai.com/posts/tuning-writing-agents-with-autoresearch/</link><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://blog.bansalai.com/posts/tuning-writing-agents-with-autoresearch/</guid><description>&lt;div class="lead !mb-9 text-xl"&gt;
 Andrej Karpathy recently showed that an AI can improve itself in a tight, unattended loop: propose a change, test it, keep it if it helps, throw it away if it doesn&amp;rsquo;t. That works beautifully when there&amp;rsquo;s a fast, objective number to check the result against. It&amp;rsquo;s a much harder question when the thing you&amp;rsquo;re trying to improve is writing quality, which nobody has ever reduced to a single trustworthy number. We tried it anyway, on the written instructions — the &amp;ldquo;prompts&amp;rdquo; — that steer two AI writing assistants, and the results are a useful lesson in where this kind of automation belongs, and where it doesn&amp;rsquo;t.
&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;h2 id="the-original-idea-a-loop-with-no-human-in-it" class="relative group"&gt;The original idea: a loop with no human in it &lt;span class="absolute top-0 w-6 transition-opacity opacity-0 -start-6 not-prose group-hover:opacity-100"&gt;&lt;a class="group-hover:text-primary-300 dark:group-hover:text-neutral-700" style="text-decoration-line: none !important;" href="#the-original-idea-a-loop-with-no-human-in-it" aria-label="Anchor"&gt;#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;&lt;p&gt;Karpathy&amp;rsquo;s project lets an AI rewrite its own training code, run a short training job, and check the result against a single number that measures how well the resulting model performs — lower is strictly better, and it&amp;rsquo;s cheap to compute after every attempt. If the number improves, the AI keeps its change. If it doesn&amp;rsquo;t, the change is thrown away and reverted. Repeat, unattended, many times an hour. One independent write-up of a real run found the loop working through hundreds of attempts unsupervised, keeping a good number of genuine improvements along the way, and meaningfully cutting the time needed to reach a target level of quality. The whole idea rests on one condition: a fast, trustworthy number you can check the AI&amp;rsquo;s work against every single time.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>