Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 122 references

Reflexive Prompt Engineering: A Framework for Responsible Prompt Engineering and Interaction Design

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that responsible prompt engineering is a five-part practice—design, selection, configuration, evaluation, and management—that lets deployers steer AI outputs without retraining models.

desk verdict Useful five-component synthesis for responsible prompt engineering, but the abstract oversells the evidence and the taxonomy's completeness is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16204 v1 pith:VBFRG6TW submitted 2025-04-22 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CLcs.ET

Christian Djeffal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CLcs.ET
keywords promptengineeringresponsibleAIethicshuman-AIinteractiongovernanceaccountabilitytransparencymanagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Responsible prompt engineering, the paper argues, is not just wording tricks: it is a five-part practice that lets the people deploying generative AI steer model behavior without retraining or changing the underlying model. The five components are prompt design, model and agent selection, system configuration, performance evaluation, and prompt management. The paper organizes existing techniques and incidents into this framework so that organizations can plan, evaluate, and account for how their prompts shape outputs. If the framework holds, it gives deployers a shared vocabulary for embedding fairness, accountability, and transparency into everyday AI use, and it connects those practices to legal duties such as the EU AI Act's dual accountability of providers and deployers.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the five-component framework itself, presented as a complete map of deployer-controlled levers in generative AI. Prompt design covers techniques like few-shot examples and chain-of-thought; system selection covers model choice and benchmarks; system configuration covers parameters such as temperature; performance evaluation covers metrics and human-in-the-loop review; prompt management covers documentation, version control, and reuse. The framework does the work of organizing a scattered literature and practice into a single structure that can guide planning, comparison, and accountability, while also revealing where responsible practices are still missing.

What would settle it

An independent systematic coding of a large, diverse corpus of practitioner prompt-engineering guides and incident reports would falsify the framework's completeness if it reliably produced a sixth category that cannot be reduced to design, selection, configuration, evaluation, or management.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that responsible prompt engineering is best understood as the systematic integration of five interconnected components: crafting instructions (prompt design), choosing the model and agent (system selection), adjusting generation parameters (system configuration), assessing output quality and impact (performance evaluation), and documenting and versioning prompts over time (prompt management). It argues that this composite practice is a bridge between AI development and deployment because it allows organizations to fine-tune AI outputs without modifying model architectures. The paper further claims that each component has a responsibility dimension—examples and chain-of-thought can be adapted to surface bias, benchmarks can include fairness and environmental criteria, evaluation should include affected stakeholders, and documentation supports explanation and accountability under laws such as the EU AI Act.

Load-bearing premise

The framework is complete only if the narrative review's thematic analysis actually captured all important prompt-engineering practices; if the five categories omit a major practice class, the framework fails as a comprehensive guide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations can use the five components as a checklist for planning and auditing how they deploy generative AI, making responsibility a design-stage activity rather than an afterthought.
  • Documentation and versioning of prompts become concrete evidence for explanation and accountability, including the EU AI Act's right to explanation when AI output informs decisions.
  • Benchmarking and evaluation choices shift from raw capability scores to include fairness, transparency, and environmental impact, so model selection becomes a responsibility decision.
  • Responsible prompting techniques such as debiased few-shot examples and ethical checkpoints in chain-of-thought can be taught and reused as design patterns across organizations.
  • Treating prompt engineering as a five-part discipline gives researchers and practitioners a shared language to compare findings and identify gaps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be developed into a maturity model where organizations score themselves on each component; a testable prediction is that higher scores correlate with fewer harmful AI incidents and better audit outcomes.
  • By framing deployers as responsible agents, the paper implicitly shifts some accountability from model providers to users; one consequence is that prompt management may become a regulated record-keeping practice in high-risk sectors, not just a private convenience.
  • A natural extension is to tie each component to specific governance artifacts—prompt registries, configuration logs, evaluation reports—so the framework becomes an operational audit instrument rather than a conceptual map.
  • The framework's value could be tested by applying it to a corpus of documented AI incidents: if every incident traces to at least one of the five components, the map is comprehensive; if not, a sixth component is needed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for responsible prompt engineering consisting of five interconnected components: prompt design, system selection, system configuration, performance evaluation, and prompt management. It argues that these components allow organizations to steer generative AI outputs without modifying model architectures, embedding ethical, legal, and social considerations into deployment. The framework is developed through a narrative review of academic and practitioner literature, and the paper illustrates each component with examples such as exemplar-based prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, temperature settings, benchmarks, and documentation practices. The abstract claims to draw on empirical evidence to demonstrate improved societal outcomes, though the body provides illustrative examples and citations rather than systematic empirical validation.

Significance. If accepted as a synthesis, the framework provides a useful shared vocabulary for planning, evaluating, and governing prompt engineering as a responsibility mechanism, bridging technical practice with legal constructs such as the EU AI Act's provider/deployer distinction. The paper has genuine strengths: it surveys a wide range of practices and cites critical analyses, including the unfaithfulness of chain-of-thought explanations; it emphasizes documentation and stakeholder involvement; it explicitly acknowledges that prompt engineering cannot remedy every model flaw; and it transparently discloses the use of AI tools in writing. The core limitation is epistemic: the manuscript is a conceptual review, not an empirical demonstration, and the completeness of the five-component taxonomy is asserted rather than methodologically established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.2] The narrative review's inclusion criteria are stated as 'prioritized sources that contributed to understanding prompt engineering fundamentals and responsible practices,' which is circular without operational definitions. The section reports databases and search terms but provides no screening counts, coding scheme, thematic-analysis protocol, or inter-rater reliability. Because the paper's central claim is that the five components form a comprehensive framework, the absence of a checkable coding protocol leaves the exhaustiveness of the taxonomy unverified. This is a correctness risk independent of whether prompt engineering can steer outputs. The authors should either supply the missing methodological details or reframe the claim as a proposed synthesis rather than a demonstrated comprehensive framework.
  2. [Abstract and §4] The abstract states 'Drawing from empirical evidence, the paper demonstrates how each component can be leveraged to promote improved societal outcomes,' and the conclusion repeats that the article 'demonstrates' the framework's effects. The manuscript is a narrative review offering illustrative examples and citations, not a systematic empirical study. Many specific claims, such as that diverse few-shot examples 'prevent' stereotypical associations or that chain-of-thought checkpoints 'ensure' ethical considerations, are plausible but are not supported by the controlled evidence presented in the paper. The epistemic language should be revised to 'proposes' or 'illustrates,' and a limitations paragraph on the evidence base should be added.
  3. [§2.2, §2.1] Prompt injection and prompt hacking are identified as central risks in §2.2, yet the five-component framework does not include security or robustness as a component and does not explain where these practices belong. Similarly, automatic prompt optimization and inference-time ensembling are not clearly located within 'prompt design' as described in §2.1. If the framework is meant to be comprehensive, the authors must either integrate these practices into the taxonomy or explicitly argue why they fall outside the scope of responsible prompt engineering. Without such positioning, the five components appear to be a classification of traditional prompt-engineering activities rather than a complete map of responsible practices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.2] The section ends with 'The following aspects characterize the author’s position concerning this research question. {ANONYMIZED}.' The placeholder appears in the posted version and must be completed or removed before final publication; the missing position statement undermines the declared reflexive methodology.
  2. [Title] The title uses 'Reflexive Prompt Engineering,' but the term 'reflexive' is never defined or used in the body; the paper actually discusses 'responsible prompt engineering.' Consider defining reflexivity explicitly or renaming the title to align with the content.
  3. [Figure 1 and §2.1] Figure 1 lists components in the order 'Prompt Design, Performance Evaluation, System Configuration, Model and Agent Selection, Prompt Management,' while §2.1 presents the order as design, selection, configuration, evaluation, management; the mismatch is confusing.
  4. [References] Some references appear incomplete or of low scholarly quality for a venue such as FAccT, for example [112] 'Restack. Benchmarking Ai In Sustainability' and [50] a 2017 Nextgov article on cybersecurity; these should be replaced or properly curated.
  5. [§3.4] The discussion of system configuration mentions only temperature and refers to 'parameters' generally; Top-p and other sampling parameters named in Figure 1 are not discussed, and the responsibility implications of configuration choices are asserted rather than developed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an inductive narrative review, not a derivation whose outputs are forced by its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a qualitative framework organizing responsible prompt engineering into five components derived from a narrative review of the literature. There is no mathematical derivation, fitted parameter, or first-principles claim whose output is equivalent to its input by construction. The framework is explicitly inductive: Section 1.2 states that the author 'employed thematic analysis to identify recurring concepts and emerging patterns' and that 'the framework emerged iteratively through careful examination of how different sources conceptualized and approached responsible prompt engineering practices.' This is the normal mode of a review-based taxonomy, and it does not reduce to a circular prediction. The paper does not cite its own prior work as load-bearing evidence, and it does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or present a fitted quantity under a new name. Concerns about the completeness of the five-category framework, the absence of a detailed coding protocol, and the placeholder '{ANONYMIZED}' in the author-position statement are correctness and transparency risks about the review's rigor, not instances of circular reasoning. Accordingly, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions: that prompt-level interventions can reliably steer outputs, and that the five-category taxonomy is comprehensive. These are not tested empirically, so they are axioms in the framework.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Prompt engineering can reliably steer generative model outputs toward desired ethical, legal, and social outcomes.
    Section 2.2 and throughout, the framework's value depends on prompt-level interventions being an effective lever; the paper presents examples but no systematic empirical validation.
  • domain assumption The five-component taxonomy is a comprehensive and correct decomposition of prompt engineering practice.
    Section 2.1 defines the five components; the narrative review's thematic analysis is not fully specified, so exhaustiveness is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reflexive Prompt Engineering: A Framework for Responsible Prompt Engineering and Interaction Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBFRG6TW

@misc{pith2026250416204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reflexive Prompt Engineering: A Framework for Responsible Prompt Engineering and Interaction Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBFRG6TW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16204}
}
read the original abstract

Responsible prompt engineering has emerged as a critical framework for ensuring that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems serve society's needs while minimizing potential harms. As generative AI applications become increasingly powerful and ubiquitous, the way we instruct and interact with them through prompts has profound implications for fairness, accountability, and transparency. This article examines how strategic prompt engineering can embed ethical and legal considerations and societal values directly into AI interactions, moving beyond mere technical optimization for functionality. This article proposes a comprehensive framework for responsible prompt engineering that encompasses five interconnected components: prompt design, system selection, system configuration, performance evaluation, and prompt management. Drawing from empirical evidence, the paper demonstrates how each component can be leveraged to promote improved societal outcomes while mitigating potential risks. The analysis reveals that effective prompt engineering requires a delicate balance between technical precision and ethical consciousness, combining the systematic rigor and focus on functionality with the nuanced understanding of social impact. Through examination of real-world and emerging practices, the article illustrates how responsible prompt engineering serves as a crucial bridge between AI development and deployment, enabling organizations to fine-tune AI outputs without modifying underlying model architectures. This approach aligns with broader "Responsibility by Design" principles, embedding ethical considerations directly into the implementation process rather than treating them as post-hoc additions. The article concludes by identifying key research directions and practical guidelines for advancing the field of responsible prompt engineering.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Danielle Allen and E. G. Weyl. 2024. The Real Dangers of Generative AI. jod 35, 1, 147–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a915355

    work page doi:10.1353/jod.2024.a915355 2024

  2. [2]

    Julia Black. 2012. The Role of Risk in Regulatory Processes. In The Oxford handbook of regulation, Robert Baldwin, Martin Cave and Martin Lodge, Eds. Oxford University Press, Oxford U. K., 302–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560219.003.0014

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Perini, Michael Katell, S

    Andrés Domínguez Hernández, Shyam Krishna, Antonella M. Perini, Michael Katell, S. J. Bennett, Ann Borda, Youmna Hashem, Semeli Hadjiloizou, Sabeehah Mahomed, Smera Jayadeva, Mhairi Aitken, and David Leslie. Mapping the individual, social and biospheric impacts of Foundation Models. In , 776–796. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658939

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Partha P. Ray. 2023. ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems 3, 121–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003

    doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 2023

  5. [5]

    BBC. 2024. Google to fix AI picture bot after 'woke' criticism. BBC News (Feb. 2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    David Gilbert. 2024. Google’s ‘Woke’ Image Generator Shows the Limitations of AI. wired (Feb. 2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Nico Grant. 2024. Google Says It Fixed Its A.I. Image Generator. The New York Times (Aug. 2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Prabhakar Raghavan. 2024. Gemini image generation got it wrong. We'll do better. Google (Feb. 2024)

    2024

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Bogiatzis-Gibbons

    Daniel J. Bogiatzis-Gibbons. 2024. Beyond Individual Accountability: (Re-)Asserting Democratic Control of AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM Digital Library. Association for Computing Machinery, Erscheinungsort nich...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Gloria Miller. 2022. Stakeholder-accountability model for artificial intelligence projects. Journal of Economics and Management, 446–494

    2022

  3. [11]

    Zoe Porter, Annette Zimmermann, Phillip Morgan, John McDermid, Tom Lawton, and Ibrahim Habli. 2022. Distinguishing two features of accountability for AI technologies. Nat Mach Intell 4, 9, 734–736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00533-0

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Slota, Kenneth R

    Stephen C. Slota, Kenneth R. Fleischmann, Sherri Greenberg, Nitin Verma, Brenna Cummings, Lan Li, and Chris Shenefiel. 2023. Many hands make many fingers to point: challenges in creating accountable AI. AI & Soc 38, 4, 1287–1299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01302-0

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Trisha Greenhalgh, Sally Thorne, and Kirsti Malterud. 2018. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation 48, 6, e12931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2019 // 2020

    Dave Harris. 2019 // 2020. Literature Review and Research Design // Literature review and research design: A guide to effective research practice. Research Methods. Routledge, London, New York

    2019

  7. [15]

    Javeed Sukhera. 2022. Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical. Journal of graduate medical education 14, 4, 414–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Xavier Amatriain. 2024. Prompt Design and Engineering: Introduction and Advanced Methods

    2024

  9. [17]

    Sabit Ekin. 2023. Prompt Engineering For ChatGPT: A Quick Guide To Techniques, Tips, And Best Practices

    2023

  10. [18]

    Shubham Vatsal and Harsh Dubey. 2024. A Survey of Prompt Engineering Methods in Large Language Models for Different NLP Tasks. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.12994

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Joseph Lindley and Roger Whitham. 2024. From Prompt Engineering to Prompt Craft. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3689050.3704424

    2024

  12. [20]

    Dulepet, Saurav Vidyadhara, Dayeon Ki, Sweta Agrawal, Chau Pham, Gerson Kroiz, Feileen Li, Hudson Tao, Ashay Srivastava, Hevander Da Costa, Saloni Gupta, Megan L

    Sander Schulhoff, Michael Ilie, Nishant Balepur, Konstantine Kahadze, Amanda Liu, Chenglei Si, Yinheng Li, Aayush Gupta, HyoJung Han, Sevien Schulhoff, Pranav S. Dulepet, Saurav Vidyadhara, Dayeon Ki, Sweta Agrawal, Chau Pham, Gerson Kroiz, Feileen Li, Hudson Tao, Ashay Srivas...

    2024

  13. [21]

    James Phoenix and Mike Taylor. 2024. Prompt Engineering for Generative AI: Future-proof inputs for reliable AI outputs at scale. O'Reilly, Sebastopol

    2024

  14. [22]

    Dan Cleary. 2025. Strategies for Managing Prompt Sensitivity and Model Consistency (January 2025). Retrieved January 22, 2025 from https://www.prompthub.us/blog/strategies-for-managing-prompt-sensitivity-and-model- consistency-

    2025

  15. [23]

    We develop software

    t2informatik. We develop software. 2023. What is Prompt Engineering? - Smartpedia - t2informatik. t2informatik GmbH (EN) (Jan. 2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Sunil Ramlochan - Enterpise AI Strategist. 2024. Complete Guide to Prompt Engineering with Temperature and Top-p. Prompt Engineering (Aug. 2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Research Team. 2024. Unveiling the Secrets: The Art of Evaluating Prompt Engineering Strategies. Threatshare.ai (May. 2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Wang, Aishwarya Chakravarthy, David Munechika, and Duen H

    Zijie J. Wang, Aishwarya Chakravarthy, David Munechika, and Duen H. Chau. 2024. Wordflow: Social Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.14447

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Prompt engineering as a new 21st century skill

    Denis Federiakin, Dimitri Molerov, Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, and Andreas Maur. Prompt engineering as a new 21st century skill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1366434

    2024

  20. [28]

    Chirag Shah. 2024. From Prompt Engineering to Prompt Science With Human in the Loop. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.04122

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Navveen Balani. 2025. Ethical Prompt Engineering: A Pathway To Responsible AI Usage (January 2025). Retrieved from https://navveenbalani.dev/index.php/articles/ethical-prompt-engineering-a-pathway-to- responsible-ai-usage/

    2025

  22. [30]

    de Santana

    Vagner F. de Santana. Challenges and Opportunities for Responsible Prompting. CHI EA '24: Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2024, 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3636268

    2024

  23. [31]

    Adam M. Victor. 2024. Prompt Engineering: The Key to Ethical AI Conversations (2024). Retrieved from

    2024

  24. [32]

    Andrei-Victor Chisca, Andrei-Cristian Rad, and Camelia Lemnaru. 2024. Prompting Fairness: Learning Prompts for Debiasing Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Language Technology for Equality, Diversity, Inclusion, 52–62

    2024

  25. [33]

    Satyam Dwivedi, Sanjukta Ghosh, and Shivam Dwivedi. 2023. Breaking the Bias: Gender Fairness in LLMs Using Prompt Engineering and In-Context Learning. rupkatha 15, 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v15n4.10

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Felix Friedrich, Katharina Hämmerl, Patrick Schramowski, Jindrich Libovicky, Kristian Kersting, and Alexander Fraser. 2024. Multilingual Text-to-Image Generation Magnifies Gender Stereotypes and Prompt Engineering May Not Help You

    2024

  27. [35]

    Rachel Skilton and Alison Cardinal. 2024. Inclusive Prompt Engineering: A Methodology for Hacking Biased AI Image Generation. SIGDOC '24: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, 76–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3641237.3691655

    2024

  28. [36]

    Amalia Foka. 2024. A Framework for Critical Evaluation of Text-to-Image Models: Integrating Art Historical Analysis, Artistic Exploration, and Critical Prompt Engineering

    2024

  29. [37]

    Park, Bidipta Sarkar, Rohan Taori, Yusuke Noda, Demetri Terzopoulos, Yejin Choi, Katsushi Ikeuchi, Hoi Vo, Li Fei-Fei, and Jianfeng Gao

    Zane Durante, Qiuyuan Huang, Naoki Wake, Ran Gong, Jae S. Park, Bidipta Sarkar, Rohan Taori, Yusuke Noda, Demetri Terzopoulos, Yejin Choi, Katsushi Ikeuchi, Hoi Vo, Li Fei-Fei, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. Agent AI: Surveying the Horizons of Multimodal Interaction

    2024

  30. [38]

    Robinson

    Onadav Shavit, Sandhini Agarwal, Miles Brundage, Steven Adler, Cullen O'Keefe, Rosie Campbell, Teddy Lee, Pamela Mishkin, Tyna Eloundou, Alan Hickey, Katarina Slama, Lama Ahmad, Paul McMillan, Alex Beutel, Alexandre Passos, and David G. Robinson. Practices for Governing Agenti...

  31. [39]

    A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy

    Seth Baum. A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Working Paper 1. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3070741. 17

    doi

  32. [40]

    Isaac Triguero, Daniel Molina, Javier Poyatos, Javier Del Ser, and Francisco Herrera. 2024. General Purpose Artificial Intelligence Systems (GPAIS): Properties, definition, taxonomy, societal implications and responsible governance. Information Fusion 103, 1–16. DOI: https://d...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Weisz, Michael Muller, Jessica He, and Stephanie Houde

    Justin D. Weisz, Michael Muller, Jessica He, and Stephanie Houde. 2023. Toward General Design Principles for Generative AI Applications

    2023

  34. [42]

    Victoria Arkhurst. 2023. Security Risks, Bias, AI Prompt Engineering (2023). Retrieved from

    2023

  35. [43]

    Maanak Gupta, Charankumar Akiri, Kshitiz Aryal, Eli Parker, and Lopamudra Praharaj. 2023. From ChatGPT to ThreatGPT: Impact of Generative AI in Cybersecurity and Privacy. IEEE Access 11, 80218–80245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3300381

    2023

  36. [44]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts

    2024

  37. [45]

    J. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y. Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, and Qian Yang. 2023. Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Digital Library. Association...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Louie Giray. 2023. Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT: A Guide for Academic Writers. Annals of biomedical engineering 51, 12, 2629–2633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03272-4

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Jiajia Yuan, Peng Bao, Zifan Chen, Mingze Yuan, Jie Zhao, Jiahua Pan, Yi Xie, Yanshuo Cao, Yakun Wang, Zhenghang Wang, Zhihao Lu, Xiaotian Zhang, Jian Li, Lei Ma, Yang Chen, Li Zhang, Lin Shen, and Bin Dong

  40. [48]

    Baha Rababah, Shang, Wu, Matthew Kwiatkowski, Carson Leung, and Cuneyt G. Akcora. 2024. SoK: Prompt Hacking of Large Language Models

    2024

  41. [49]

    Sander Schulhoff. 2025. Prompt Hacking: Understanding Types and Defenses for LLM Security (January 2025). Retrieved January 22, 2025 from https://learnprompting.org/docs/prompt_hacking/introduction

    2025

  42. [50]

    Retrieved June 8, 2017 from http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2017/05/people-who-fight-hacking-and-cybercrime-are-turning- designers-help/138009/

    The People Who Fight Hacking and Cybercrime Are Turning to Designers For Help. Retrieved June 8, 2017 from http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2017/05/people-who-fight-hacking-and-cybercrime-are-turning- designers-help/138009/

    2017

  43. [51]

    Wouter Eggink, Deger Ozkaramanli, Cristina Zaga, and Nicola Liberati. 2020. Setting the Stage for Responsible Design. In DRS2020: Synergy. Proceedings of DRS. Design Research Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.116

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Bernd C. Stahl, Simisola Akintoye, Lise Bitsch, Berit Bringedal, Damian Eke, Michele Farisco, Karin Grasenick, Manuel Guerrero, William Knight, Tonii Leach, Sven Nyholm, George Ogoh, Achim Rosemann, Arleen Salles, Julia Trattnig, and Inga Ulnicane. 2021. From Responsible Resea...

    2021

  45. [53]

    David H. Guston. 2014. Understanding 'anticipatory governance'. Social Studies of Science 44, 2, 218–242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies. In The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The Pacing Problem, Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby and Joseph R. Herkert, Eds. The International Library of Ethics, Law a...

    2011

  47. [55]

    Keld Bødker, Finn Kensing, and Jesper Simonsen. 2004. Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    2004

  48. [56]

    Elizabeth Bondi, Lily Xu, Diana Acosta-Navas, and Jackson A. Killian. 2021. Envisioning Communities: A: Participatory Approach Towards AI for Social Good. AIES '21: Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 425–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/34...

    2021

  49. [57]

    Lee A. Bygrave. 2022. Security by Design: Aspirations and Realities in a Regulatory Context. OLR 8, 3, 126–

    2022

  50. [58]

    Mireille Hildebrandt. 2015. Legal Protection by Design: Objections and Refutations. Legisprudence 5, 2, 223– 248

    2015

  51. [59]

    Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma

    Sang M. Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2021. An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference

    2021

  52. [60]

    DigitalOcean. 2025. Prompt Engineering Best Practices: Tips, Tricks, and Tools | (January 2025). Retrieved January 22, 2025 from https://www.digitalocean.com/resources/articles/prompt-engineering-best-practices

    2025

  53. [61]

    Luzniak, Karolina. 2023. Preventing Bias in Generative AI: How to Ensure Models’ Fairness and Accuracy? (2023). Retrieved from https://neoteric.eu/blog/preventing-bias-in-generative-ai-how-to-ensure-models-fairness- and-accuracy/

    2023

  54. [62]

    Promptfoo. 2024. Preventing Bias & Toxicity in Generative AI (2024). Retrieved from https:// www.promptfoo.dev/blog/prevent-bias-in-generative-ai/

    2024

  55. [63]

    Mindful AI: Crafting prompts to mitigate the bias in generative AI

    Snyder Kieran. Mindful AI: Crafting prompts to mitigate the bias in generative AI. Retrieved 21.01.25 from https://textio.com/blog/mindful-ai-crafting-prompts-to-mitigate-the-bias-in-generative-ai

  56. [64]

    Alexander Pettersson and Melanie Paschke. 2024. Ethical Prompting for Generative AI: A how-to guide for students at ETH Zurich. ETH Zurich, Zurich

    2024

  57. [65]

    Dengel Tobias. 2024. To Prevent Generative AI Hallucinations and Bias, Integrate Checks and Balances. Big Data Wire (Aug. 2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Harvard University IT. 2025. Getting started with prompts for text-based Generative AI tools (January 2025). Retrieved January 22, 2025 from https://huit.harvard.edu/news/ai-prompts

    2025

  59. [67]

    Zheng Chu, Jingchang Chen, Qianglong Chen, Weijiang Yu, Tao He, Haotian Wang, Weihua Peng, Ming Liu, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2023. Navigate through Enigmatic Labyrinth A Survey of Chain of Thought Reasoning: Advances, Frontiers and Future

    2023

  60. [68]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Le Quoc, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

    2022

  61. [69]

    Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2023. Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    2023

  62. [70]

    Alex Bennet. 2025. Examples of Ethical Prompting for ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence (2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https://www.thoughtmedia.com/ethical-prompting/

    2025

  63. [71]

    Lance Eliot. 2023. Latest Prompt Engineering Technique Chain-Of-Verification Does A Sleek Job Of Keeping Generative AI Honest And Upright (2023). Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2023/09/23/ latest-prompt-engineering-technique-chain-of-verification-does-a...

    2023

  64. [72]

    Aditya Kuppa, Rasumov-Rahe, Nikon, and Marc Voses, Eds. 2021. Chain Of Reference prompting helps LLM to think like a lawyer

    2021

  65. [73]

    Fangyi Yu, Lee Quartey, and Frank Schilder. 2022. Legal Prompting: Teaching a Language Model to Think Like a Lawyer

    2022

  66. [74]

    Caughron, Alison L

    Jay J. Caughron, Alison L. Antes, Cheryl K. Stenmark, Chaise E. Thiel, Xiaoqian Wang, and Michael D. Mumford. 2011. Sensemaking Strategies for Ethical Decision-making. Ethics & behavior 21, 5, 351–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.604293

    2011

  67. [75]

    David Miller. 2024. Understanding Prompt Bias and How to Overcome It (2024). Retrieved from https:// futureskillsacademy.com/blog/prompt-bias-in-ai/

    2024

  68. [76]

    Vidisha Vijay. 2024. Mitigating AI bias with prompt engineering — putting GPT to the test (2024). Retrieved from https://venturebeat.com/ai/mitigating-ai-bias-with-prompt-engineering-putting-gpt-to-the-test/

    2024

  69. [77]

    Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie J. Cai. 2022. AI Chains: Transparent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language Model Prompts. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Digital Library. Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2022

  70. [78]

    Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2023. Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting. arXiv.org abs/2305.04388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.04388. 19

    2023 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Tanneru, and Himabindu Lakkaraju

    Chirag Agarwal, Sree H. Tanneru, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2024. Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models

    2024

  72. [80]

    Riikka Koulu and Jörg Pohle. 2024. Legal Design Patterns: New Tools for Analysis and Translations Between Law and Technology. DISO 3, 2, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00109-y

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    PromptHero. 2025. Search prompts for Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT & Midjourney (January 2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https://prompthero.com/

    2025

  74. [82]

    AI Prompt Database

    The Prompt Index. AI Prompt Database. Retrieved January 18, 2025 from https://www.thepromptindex.com/ prompt-database

    2025

  75. [83]

    Maastricht University. 2025. AI Prompt Library (January 2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https:// www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/about-um/education-at-um/edlab/ai-education-maastricht-university/ai-prompt- library

    2025

  76. [84]

    promptsty.com. 2024. Prompts For Artificial Intelligence Ethics: Essential Guide - PromptsTY (2024). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https://promptsty.com/prompts-for-artificial-intelligence-ethics/

    2024

  77. [85]

    Liu, Stefano Soatto, Matteo Marchi, Pratik Chaudhari, and Paulo Tabuada

    Tian Y. Liu, Stefano Soatto, Matteo Marchi, Pratik Chaudhari, and Paulo Tabuada. 2024. Meanings and Feelings of Large Language Models: Observability of Latent States in Generative AI

    2024

  78. [86]

    Anthropic. 2025. System Prompts - Anthropic (January 2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https:// docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts

    2025

  79. [87]

    GenAIScript. 2025. System Prompts (January 2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https://microsoft.github.io/ genaiscript/reference/scripts/system/

    2025

  80. [88]

    Elias Bachaalany. 2025. TheBigPromptLibrary: A collection of prompts, system prompts and LLM instructions (January 2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https://github.com/0xeb/TheBigPromptLibrary

    2025

  81. [89]

    Vlad Alex. 2025. ChatGPT-System-Prompts: (January 2025). Retrieved January 17, 2025 from https:// github.com/mustvlad/ChatGPT-System-Prompts

    2025

  82. [90]

    Krishna Ronanki, Beatriz Cabrero-Daniel, Jennifer Horkoff, and Christian Berger. 2023. Requirements Engineering using Generative AI: Prompts and Prompting Patterns

    2023

  83. [91]

    Hari Subramonyam, Divy Thakkar, Jürgen Dieber, and Anoop Sinha. 2024. Content-Centric Prototyping of Generative AI Applications: Emerging Approaches and Challenges in Collaborative Software Teams

    2024

  84. [92]

    Farouq Sammour, Jia Xu, Xi Wang, Mo Hu, and Zhenyu Zhang. 2024. Responsible AI in Construction Safety: Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models and Prompt Engineering

    2024

  85. [93]

    S. M. T. I. Tonmoy, S. M. M. Zaman, Vinija Jain, Anku Rani, Vipula Rawte, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das

  86. [94]

    Yannan Li. 2024. Reduce AI Illusion Based on Data Science Technology and Prompt Engineering. Applied and Computational Engineering

    2024

  87. [95]

    Douglas Schuler, Aki Namioka, and Lucy A. Suchman. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. CRC Press, Mahwah

    1993

  88. [96]

    Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The Methodology Of Participatory Design. Technical Communication 32, 163–174

    2005

  89. [97]

    Opening Up

    Andy Stirling. 2008. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33, 2, 262–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265

    2008 doi

  90. [98]

    Understanding and Evaluating Trust in Generative AI and Large Language Models for Spreadsheets

    Simon Thorne. Understanding and Evaluating Trust in Generative AI and Large Language Models for Spreadsheets. In Proceedings of the European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group, Simon Thorne, Ed. EuSpRiG, 65–78

  91. [99]

    Tomáš Ráčil, Petr Gallus, and Tomáš Šlajs. 2024. Efficiency Divide: Comparative Analysis of Human & Neural Network Algorithm Development. European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, 683–692

    2024

  92. [100]

    Mehdi Ben Amor, Michael Granitzer, and Jelena Mitrović. 2023. Impact of Position Bias on Language Models in Token Classification. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3605098.3636126

    2023

  93. [101]

    Keita Saito, Akifumi Wachi, Koki Wataoka, and Youhei Akimoto. 2023. Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Models

    2023

  94. [102]

    Wenda Xu, Guanglei Zhu, Xuandong Zhao, Liangming Pan, Lei Li, and William Y. Wang. 2024. Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement. 20

    2024

  95. [103]

    Lance Eliot. 2024. Knowing About Temperature Settings When Using Generative AI Is Hot Stuff For Prompt Engineering (July 2024). Retrieved January 18, 2024 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2024/07/29/ knowing-about-temperature-settings-when-using-generative-ai-is-ho...

    2024

  96. [104]

    Sander Schulhoff. 2025. Understanding Temperature, Top P, and Maximum Length in LLMs (January 2025). Retrieved January 22, 2025 from https://learnprompting.org/docs/intermediate/configuration_hyperparameters

    2025

  97. [105]

    Kate Crawford. 2024. Generative AI's environmental costs are soaring - and mostly secret. Nature 626, 8000,

    2024

  98. [106]

    Mél Hogan. 2024. The Fumes of AI. Critical AI 2, 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/2834703X-11205231

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    Islam, and Shaolei Ren

    Pengfei Li, Jianyi Yang, Mohammad A. Islam, and Shaolei Ren. 2023. Making AI Less "Thirsty": Uncovering and Addressing the Secret Water Footprint of AI Models

    2023

  100. [108]

    Oxford Analytica. 2024. AI will exacerbate water scarcity. Emerald Expert Briefings. Emerald. Retrieved from

    2024

  101. [109]

    Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, Sayash Kapoor, Shayne Longpre, Betty Xiong, Nestor Maslej, and Percy Liang. 2024. The Foundation Model Transparency Index v1.1

    2024

  102. [110]

    Michelle Avery. 2024. From Benchmarks to Red-Teaming: Ensuring Robust and Responsible AI (2024). Retrieved from https://www.willowtreeapps.com/insights/genai-benchmarking-and-red-teaming

    2024

  103. [111]

    Angelina Wang, Aaron Hertzmann, and Olga Russakovsky. 2024. Benchmark suites instead of leaderboards for evaluating AI fairness. Patterns (New York, N.Y.) 5, 11, 101080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2024.101080

    2024

  104. [112]

    Benchmarking Ai In Sustainability

    Restack. Benchmarking Ai In Sustainability. Retrieved May 21, 2025 from https://www.restack.io/p/sustainable- ai-answer-benchmarking-ai-sustainability-cat-ai

    2025

  105. [113]

    Lee Boonstra. 2024. Documenting Your Prompts: A Best Practice for Success (2024). Retrieved from https:// medium.com/google-cloud/documenting-your-prompts-a-best-practice-for-success-1278f2c0344e

    2024

  106. [114]

    S Kingson. 2024. How Technical Writers Can Master Prompt Engineering (2024). Retrieved from https:// document360.com/blog/prompt-engineering-for-technical-writers/

    2024

  107. [115]

    Transparency Through Documentation: A Pathway to Safer AI

    Thalia Khan, Albert Tanjaya, Jacob Pratt, and John Howell. Transparency Through Documentation: A Pathway to Safer AI. Retrieved May 21, 2025 from https://partnershiponai.org/transparency-through-documentation-a- pathway-to-safer-ai/

    2025

  108. [116]

    Leo S. Lo. 2023. The Art and Science of Prompt Engineering: A New Literacy in the Information Age. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 27, 4, 203–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2023.2227621

    2023

  109. [117]

    Korzyński, G

    P. Korzyński, G. Mazurek, Pamela Krzypkowska, and Artur Kurasiński. 2023. Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 25–38

    2023

  110. [118]

    Gonzaga University School of Law. 2024. Generative AI & Legal Research: A guide for students and faculty on using generative AI as a tool for legal research and writing (2024). Retrieved from https:// libguides.law.gonzaga.edu/c.php?g=1374374

    2024

  111. [177]

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.18261/olr.8.3.2. 18

    doi

  112. [693]

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00478-x

    doi

  113. [2023]

    TIME 1, 2, 100019

    Advanced prompting as a catalyst: Empowering large language models in the management of gastrointestinal cancers. TIME 1, 2, 100019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-med.2023.100019

    2023

  114. [2024]

    A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in Large Language Models

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.