<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Experimental Design on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</title>
    <link>http://programmer.ie/tags/experimental-design/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Experimental Design on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 05:00:02 +0100</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://programmer.ie/tags/experimental-design/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The Measurement Instrument</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/memory/02-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 05:00:02 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/memory/02-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Chapter 1 defined memory behaviourally: the past must change what the system does now, ideally improving it. This chapter defines how that claim is measured. The distinction matters from the first paragraph, because the word &amp;ldquo;instrument&amp;rdquo; will recur throughout the book and it never means the memory architecture. The memory system is one product of this book. The Memory Measurement Instrument — the apparatus used to determine whether that system remembers — is the other.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Change One Thing</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/dspy-from-first-principles/14-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2026 11:05:00 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/dspy-from-first-principles/14-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The previous three chapters ran three optimizers against a metric we had already proved was blind, and got what chapter 9 predicted: a search that pursued the objective faithfully and damaged the thing the objective could not see.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That result has an obvious interpretation and a correct one, and they are not the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The obvious interpretation is that the optimizers underperformed. The correct one requires an experiment, because &amp;ldquo;the objective was the problem&amp;rdquo; is a hypothesis and we had not tested it. Everything we knew was consistent with a second explanation — that DSPy&amp;rsquo;s optimizers do not do much on a small local model regardless of what you point them at.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
