逐日AI

面试题库

共 328 题,当前筛选 1 题。

标签
还有 362 个标签
#api-design9#coding-agent9#distributed-systems8#multi-agent8#rag8#chunking7#debugging7#pipeline-design7#structured-output7#agent-loop6#mcp6#operations6#prompt-injection6#sse6#tool-calling6#tool-design6#context5#context-engineering5#deployment5#embeddings5#hybrid-search5#message-bus5#scheduling5#system-prompt5#agentic-rag4#behavioral4#client4#concurrency4#consistency4#framework-design4#ingestion4#prompt-engineering4#rate-limiting4#retrieval4#routing4#trade-offs4#abstention3#agents-sdk3#caching3#communication3#context-window3#cost-control3#data-quality3#failure-modes3#image-generation3#interview-prep3#langgraph3#latency3#llm-as-judge3#llm-basics3#long-context3#model-migration3#model-routing3#orchestration3#ordering3#progressive-disclosure3#prompt-basics3#prompt-caching3#protocol3#provider-abstraction3#ranking3#recall3#redis-streams3#responses-api3#resume3#retry3#runtime3#scalability3#skills3#state-management3#statelessness3#subagents3#timeline3#versioning3#workflow-engine3#access-control2#agent-design2#async-task2#auth2#checkpointing2#citation-verification2#citations2#claude-md2#code-review2#compaction2#context-rot2#contextual-retrieval2#cost-tradeoff2#data-modeling2#database2#distribution2#fallback2#ffmpeg2#golden-set2#grounding2#interview-process2#long-term-memory2#media-pipeline2#memory2#multi-hop2#multi-tenancy2#oauth2#prioritization2#project-storytelling2#prompt-techniques2#query-rewriting2#react2#refusal2#reproducibility2#rerank2#retrieval-quality2#retrospective2#scripts2#sharding2#state-machine2#tool-permissions2#tooling2#tools2#tracing2#transport2#tts2#ux2#vector-database2#verification2#workflow2#agent-basics1#agent-quality1#agent-sdk1#agents-md1#altitude1#analytics1#approvals1#architecture-review1#async1#atomicity1#attention-budget1#av-sync1#backoff1#bi-encoder1#bm251#budget-control1#build-vs-buy1#cancellation1#candidate-selection1#capacity-planning1#career1#chain-of-thought1#ci1#circuit-breaker1#claude-code1#cli-design1#client-integration1#cloud1#compliance1#compression1#configuration1#confused-deputy1#consistent-hashing1#content-hash1#content-safety1#context-assembly1#context-compression1#context-management1#copyright1#coreference1#correctness1#cost-accounting1#cost-analysis1#cost-optimization1#cross-encoder1#cross-model1#customer-support1#dag1#decision-making1#decomposition1#degradation1#deliberate-practice1#design1#diagnostics1#dimensions1#docker1#documentation1#embedding-migration1#encoding1#engineering-judgement1#engineering-tradeoffs1#error-propagation1#escalation1#eval1#event-driven1#evidence1#failure-analysis1#fairness1#faithfulness1#fan-out1#feedback-loop1#fencing-token1#few-shot1#filter-pushdown1#filtering1#fine-tuning1#forking1#four-elements1#framework-selection1#frontend1#global-market1#graph-rag1#guardrails1#hallucination1#handoff1#handoffs1#headless1#hnsw1#hooks1#human-in-the-loop1#hybrid1#hyde1#incremental-recompute1#incremental-sync1#index-maintenance1#index-routing1#indexing1#information-retrieval1#instruction-hierarchy1#integration1#intent-routing1#interrupt-merge1#invalidation1#isolation1#iterative-scan1#ivfflat1#json-parsing1#json-schema1#just-in-time1#jwt1#knowledge-organization1#labeling1#latency-budget1#lease1#least-privilege1#llm-output-quality1#long-session1#loop-guard1#maintenance1#mcp-basics1#mental-model1#messages-api1#metadata1#methodology1#metrics1#migration1#mobile1#model-selection1#moderation1#modularity1#multi-turn1#multimodal1#nodejs1#normalisation1#notifications1#ocr1#offline-testing1#openai1#overlap1#pagination1#parent-child1#pdf-parsing1#performance1#permissions1#persistence1#pgvector1#pipeline-reliability1#portfolio1#primitives1#priority-queue1#proactive-messaging1#product-engineering1#production-readiness1#prompt1#prompt-assembly1#prompt-bloat1#prompt-design1#prompt-surface1#prompt-template1#prompt-versioning1#prompting1#protocol-versions1#quality1#quality-check1#quantization1#query-transformation1#quiet-hours1#rag-basics1#rank-fusion1#reasoning1#reconnect1#redis1#reflection1#replay1#reporting1#retrieval-failure1#retrieval-metrics1#retry-semantics1#retry-strategy1#review1#risk-assessment1#rollback1#rollout1#rrf1#safety1#sampling1#sandbox1#sandboxing1#scaling1#schema-design1#schema-validation1#scoping1#secrets-management1#self-assessment1#self-introduction1#self-presentation1#self-reflection1#server-design1#service-architecture1#session-management1#sessions1#similarity1#skill-authoring1#skill-description1#skill-design1#spec1#split-brain1#stakeholder-communication1#star1#state-persistence1#stateless1#stdio-transport1#stopping-criteria1#storytelling1#subagent1#subscriptions1#subtitles1#task-graph1#team-governance1#test-set1#test-strategy1#testing1#thresholds1#timezone1#token-accounting1#token-budget1#tool-budget1#tool-execution1#tool-naming1#tool-schema1#trust-boundary1#tuning1#validation1#vector-index1#workflow-design1#xml-tags1#zero-downtime1

5 天提示词工程零基础

D2 few-shot、思维链、分步与自检;什么时候这些都不管用

  • 提示词写得再好也做不对的任务有哪些特征?遇到这类任务你会怎么办?What are the signs of a task that no amount of prompt engineering will fix, and what do you do when you hit one?
    国内高频海外高频进阶#prompt-limits#failure-modes

    分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

    1. 这题考的是「知道提示词的边界在哪」。一直往提示词上堆技巧的候选人会被判为缺乏判断力;能说出「这题不该用提示词解」才是成熟的信号。
    2. 拆法:把失效分三类。缺知识——信息在模型训练截止之后或本来就在你的私有数据里,模型不可能知道,还可能编出格式正确的假答案;缺工具——任务需要对外部世界做动作或查询(跑命令、查库、发请求),文字生成做不到;任务写错——需求本身自相矛盾或者你要的其实是另一件事。
    3. 每类给一个判据:缺知识问「这信息是昨天才出现的,模型有可能知道吗」;缺工具问「一个只能打字的人能完成这件事吗」;任务写错问「两个人读这个需求会不会得出相反的做法」。
    4. 结论:缺知识就把资料贴进上下文或接检索;缺工具就接工具调用或在代码里做完再让模型解读;任务写错回去改需求。三种都不是提示词层面的解法。
    5. 追问几乎必然是「格式越严格假答案越像真的怎么办」——答案是对事实类输出要求带出处或可验证的标识,并在代码里校验;以及「怎么在评估里提前发现这类任务」,答案是测试集里放几条模型不可能知道的样本,看它是否老实说不知道。

    How to reason about it · think before answering

    1. This tests whether you know where prompting ends. Piling techniques onto a hopeless task signals poor judgment; saying 'this is not a prompting problem' signals maturity.
    2. Three failure classes. Missing knowledge: the fact postdates training or lives in your private data, and the model may fabricate a well-formatted answer. Missing tools: the task needs an action or query against the world. Wrong task: the requirement is contradictory or you actually want something else.
    3. One test each: could the model plausibly know something that appeared yesterday? Could a person who can only type complete this? Would two readers of the requirement do opposite things?
    4. Conclusion: paste the material or add retrieval for missing knowledge; add tool use or compute in code for missing tools; fix the requirement for a wrong task. None of these is a prompt change.
    5. Follow-ups: stricter formats make fabrications look more credible — require sources or verifiable identifiers and validate in code. And to catch these early, seed the test set with a few unknowable items and check that the model admits it does not know.

    答题要点

    • 三类失效:缺知识(截止日期之后或私有数据)、缺工具(需要对外部世界做动作)、任务写错(需求自相矛盾)
    • 缺知识的危险在于模型会编出格式正确的假答案,格式越严越像真的
    • 解法都在提示词之外:贴资料或接检索、接工具调用或代码先算、回去改需求
    • 测试集里放几条模型不可能知道的样本,检查它会不会老实说不知道

    Key points

    • Three failure classes: missing knowledge, missing tools, and a wrongly specified task
    • Missing knowledge is dangerous because the model fabricates well-formatted answers, and stricter formats make them more convincing
    • Fixes live outside the prompt: paste material or add retrieval, add tool use or compute in code, or fix the requirement
    • Seed the test set with unknowable items to check the model admits ignorance