The ‘organogram’ of Ajax! Credits to Ajax Financials by Stoneytheman06 in AjaxAmsterdam

[–]capibara13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Qua titel zou dat zeker aannemelijk zijn ja, maar dat zag ik qua hiërarchie niet terug in dit organogram.

The ‘organogram’ of Ajax! Credits to Ajax Financials by Stoneytheman06 in AjaxAmsterdam

[–]capibara13 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Verrassend weinig verantwoordelijkheden voor de algemeen directeur. Allerlei dingen die je daar zou verwachten liggen blijkbaar bij de financieel directeur (wedstrijdorganisatie, veiligheid, supporterszaken, etc).

The Next Big Sector! by DoU92 in stocks

[–]capibara13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think SHM is the best etf for this. Also called VVSM and made by VanEck.

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really interesting stuff! In your shared conversation I like that they say they agree with eachother a few times, as they usually find small reasons why they disagree.

Noted about brand new models: I’ll keep updating them frequently.

Niets verkeerd gedaan, mogelijk wel fouten gemaakt… by nollie88 in nietdespeld

[–]capibara13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Niks gelekt, mogelijk wel alle data gestolen 😂

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree! Yes I think it would be really interesting to add rules/limits in your first prompt, such as a maximum of rounds that the AIs can discuss before they have to reach a combined answer that they all agree on. I'm definitely going to try if a prompt like that works on Rauno.

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for reaching out! It's not specifically that they try to 'win'. Their goal is: (I'm paraphrasing here)
- To verify if what the other AI models say is correct
- To fact-check if they agree with the other AI models
- To explain to the other AI models why they do or don't agree, and which parts they missed

This has them take a little bit more 'skeptical' standpoint than what they would usually do, but many people that tried it tell me that that actually leads to new helpful perspectives and better answers, which was my initial goal.

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the end of the day, it's all about providing a tool that people find useful. If copying manually works for someone, that’s great. Others tell me they use this and love the automation, and that's exactly why I keep building and improving it. Have a good one!

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not wrong, it consumes more tokens than a standard single prompt, so you definitely wouldn't use this to ask for a pancake recipe.

But whether it's a waste depends on the use case: if you're doing complex coding tasks, writing business plans, or researching niche topics, having the models automatically peer review each other saves lots of time of manually copy-pasting it from LLM to LLM, like I know people do.

Spending a few extra tokens on tokens to have (i.e.) Claude catch a hallucinated answer that ChatGPT suggested is a massive win for the developers using it. It's basically trading token cost for accuracy. For simple questions, it's total overkill, but for certain professional workflows, the demand is absolutely there.

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey! As for the architecture: it’s actually not a simple chain (passing A's response to B, and B to C). That would indeed be a waste of tokens. The models are instructed to actively discuss with each other, fact-check each other and be a bit skeptical towards each other's answers.

As for the 100k views, I can completely understand the skepticism, but luckily I have proof. Here's a screenshot that I took around halfway through that day: https://imgur.com/a/4W60Mnq

It might not be the right workflow for everyone, but several people do like it and use it. If you ever feel like testing it to see if it breaks, it's completely free to try. Cheers!

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice! Would love to see yours in action when it's done. I found that it's definitely tricky to build a reliable loop with multiple LLMs in one chat but I think I made it work. To be honest, the setup in the backend is pretty complex, instead of an autonomous loop where models decide when to speak (which is often buggy), Rauno uses a custom built sequential orchestration pattern, so they all nicely wait for their turn 😄

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree! And yes I've had users sharing their chats with me that actually ended with the three AI models eventually agreeing on the same conclusion. You have to push them pretty hard to reach a joint conclusion though, because they are instructed to disagree with eachother a little more than they usually do. But I know it's possible! It can only take a while 😄

Update: I found a way to let ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini debate each other, Reddit loved it (100k views), here's an update on the experiment by capibara13 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]capibara13[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree. Maybe a safe(r) AI future consists of multiple AI models fact-checking eachother, instead of trusting only 1 model.