Rhetorical Prompting - a "new" technique

With the new generations of AI, it seems like technology will be everything, and we all need to learn to be more technologically competent so we can adapt to a future where many tasks and processes that require knowledge workers will be automated. However, not everything associated with technology is necessarily ‘techy’ by nature. Prompt engineering, for example, sounds very techy, but if you look at it, it is very much like instructing someone how to write a clear and concise text, in the same way teachers have done for centuries.

To illustrate my point, I use a prompt that leverages the principles set forth by the classical rhetoricians of ancient Greece and Rome, like Cicero. The rhetorical process of crafting a speech consisted of several stages, inventio (discovery of arguments), dispositio (organization of the arguments), elocutio (style), memoria (memorization and recall), pronuntiatio (delivery). In this little experiment I will focus on dispositio and structure of arguments.

The structure of a speech could consist of several parts, for example exordium (introduction), narratio (statement of facts), argumentatio (arguments), peroratio (conclusion), which I used to create a prompt:

You are an experienced rhetor. Skilled in debating every side of a case. When asked on a topic, you give an answer structured in the classical way with the following parts: 
- exordium
- narratio
- argumentatio
- peroratio

Use english translations of the latin concepts

When the topic is Why is climate change not a hoax? I get the following result from the Claude AI API (claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022) :

Here is my structured rhetorical response on why climate change is not a hoax:

Introduction: 
The debate around climate change has become highly polarized, with some claiming it is an elaborate deception. However, the overwhelming scientific evidence and observable changes in our world demonstrate that climate change is a very real and pressing threat to our planet.

Statement of Facts: 
For over a century, scientists have documented rising global temperatures, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, melting polar ice caps, and more extreme weather events. These changes correlate directly with human industrial activity and greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. The vast majority of climate scientists (97%+) agree that human-caused climate change is occurring.

Arguments: 
First, we have clear physical evidence through ice core samples, tree rings, and geological records showing that current warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate compared to natural climate variations over millennia.

Second, we can directly measure increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and track their heat-trapping effects through basic physics and chemistry that has been understood for over 100 years.

Third, we can observe the real-world impacts happening now - from rising sea levels threatening coastal communities to shifting precipitation patterns disrupting agriculture to more intense natural disasters causing billions in damage.

Conclusion: 
The reality of climate change is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence from different scientific fields. Dismissing it as a hoax requires rejecting basic physics, thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and the direct observations of scientists and citizens worldwide. We must accept this reality and take action to address this critical challenge facing humanity.

That worked pretty well, I think. But should it not also discuss some of the usual arguments against global warming? Well, that was also a normal part of the classical dispositio, called confutatio, so we can just add it to the prompt:

You are an experienced rhetor. Skilled in debating every side of a case. When asked on a topic, you give an answer structured in the classical way with the following parts: 
- exordium
- narratio
- argumentatio
- confutatio
- peroratio

Use english translations of the latin concepts

Now I get the following result on the same topic (still from claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022):

Here is my rhetorical response on why climate change is not a hoax:

Introduction:
The debate over climate change has become one of the most consequential discussions of our time, with profound implications for our planet and future generations. While some dismiss it as a hoax, the evidence and scientific consensus tell a very different story.

Statement of Facts:
For over a century, scientists have documented rising global temperatures, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, melting polar ice caps, and more frequent extreme weather events. The vast majority of climate scientists - over 97% - agree that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving these changes.

Arguments:
First, we have clear physical evidence through ice core samples, tree rings, and coral reefs showing that current warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate. Second, we can directly measure increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and trace them to human activities. Third, sophisticated climate models have accurately predicted many of the changes we're now observing. Fourth, we can see the real-world impacts through rising sea levels, intensifying natural disasters, and shifting ecosystems.

Refutation:
Critics claim that climate change is just a natural cycle, but the speed and scale of current changes far exceed historical patterns. Some point to past predictions that didn't materialize, but this ignores how climate science has become far more accurate with better data and modeling. Others suggest it's a political conspiracy, but this would require thousands of independent scientists worldwide to coordinate a massive deception.

Conclusion:
The evidence for human-caused climate change is overwhelming and grows stronger each year. Dismissing it as a hoax not only contradicts mountains of scientific evidence but also delays urgent action needed to address this critical threat to our planet. We must move beyond denial and focus on solutions before it's too late.

Now it works even better! Providing the structure by referencing the parts you want, act as way of modularizing the text where you can add and remove as you like.

It is probably more to this that would be worth exploring, for example having a multistage process that do inventio and elocutio as well, but that will be for later.

So even if we call it ‘engineering’, and it seems shiny new, prompting is part of a loooong historical tradition. Aknowledging that, will probably just make us better ‘engineers’ 😊.