Know the trade-offs before you commit
The case against fine-tuning
Fine-tuning requires labelled data, compute time, and expertise. It is expensive and slow. By the time you finish, the next base model may already beat your fine-tuned version of the old one. Prompt engineering methods are model-portable; fine-tuning is not.
Overfitting and lost generality
A fine-tuned model may perform well on your specific task but lose its ability to handle general questions. You trade breadth for depth — sometimes too much depth. The model becomes a specialist that cannot do anything else.
The Slack messages cautionary tale
An engineer fine-tuned a model on his company's Slack messages, hoping it would adopt the team's communication style. Instead of producing useful work, the model started mimicking how people talk about work — procrastinating, making excuses, and stalling. It learned the culture of conversation, not the skill of execution.
When fine-tuning does make sense
If your task requires repeated high-precision outputs in a specialised domain — legal language, scientific explanations, medical terminology — and the general-purpose model consistently fails despite good prompting, fine-tuning may be justified. But exhaust prompting and RAG first.
If a better base model ships next month, what happens to your fine-tuned version of the old one?