Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
AI Fluency Playbook
Getting Started
How to Use
Core Content
Five Pillars
Exercises
Concepts
Learning Profiles
Archetypes
Pathways
Reference
Resources
Glossary
Tools
Further Reading
GW AI Fluency Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Your First AI Team Meeting
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
''Run a multi-perspective AI session with two expert viewpoints on the same problem. 15 minutes.'' <blockquote> '''One-liner:''' Run a multi-perspective AI session where one prompt gets you two expert viewpoints on the same problem β no extra tools required. </blockquote> ---- == π§ Jump in (Tinkerers start here) == Pick a real decision you're currently facing. It could be a work decision, a project direction, or a problem you're stuck on. Paste this prompt into any AI chat (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini β anything works): <blockquote> I want you to act as two different experts giving me advice on '''[your problem here]'''. First, respond as a '''[Role A]''' β someone who focuses on '''[their priority]'''. Then, respond as a '''[Role B]''' β someone who focuses on '''[their different priority]'''. Keep each perspective clearly labeled. Be specific and give concrete recommendations, not vague advice. </blockquote> '''Example β choosing whether to launch a feature now or wait:''' <blockquote> I want you to act as two different experts giving me advice on whether to launch our new onboarding flow this week or wait until next month. First, respond as a '''growth-focused product manager''' β someone who prioritizes user acquisition and speed to market. Then, respond as a '''risk-aware QA lead''' β someone who prioritizes stability, edge cases, and user trust. Keep each perspective clearly labeled. Be specific and give concrete recommendations, not vague advice. </blockquote> After reading both perspectives, send this follow-up: <blockquote> Now, act as a '''neutral facilitator'''. Summarize where these two experts agree, where they disagree, and what the key trade-off is. End with a single question I should answer before making my decision. </blockquote> Read the synthesis. Notice how one prompt gave you a structured debate that would normally require two people in a room. ---- == π Plan first (Planners start here) == Here's what you're about to do: # '''Choose your problem''' β Pick a real decision or challenge you're working on right now. It works best when reasonable people could disagree about the right approach. # '''Pick two expert roles''' β Choose two perspectives that would naturally see your problem differently. Examples: marketer vs. engineer, short-term thinker vs. long-term strategist, customer advocate vs. operations manager. # '''Write and send the dual-role prompt''' β Use the template in the "Jump in" section. Fill in your problem and your two roles. # '''Read both perspectives''' β Notice where they conflict, where they agree, and which one you instinctively lean toward. # '''Send the facilitator follow-up''' β Ask the AI to synthesize the two views and surface the core trade-off. '''"Done" looks like:''' You have a summary of two contrasting expert viewpoints and a clear understanding of the key trade-off in your decision. ---- == π§ Why this matters (Strategists start here) == This exercise builds the foundational skill behind all multi-agent AI workflows: '''defining specialized roles and comparing their outputs'''. At the intermediate level, you'll split these roles across separate AI sessions with different contexts. At the advanced level, you'll design entire agent architectures. But it all starts here β training yourself to think in terms of roles, perspectives, and structured disagreement rather than asking AI once and accepting the first answer. ---- == Reflection == * Did one perspective feel stronger than the other? Why β was it genuinely better argued, or did it just align with what you already believed? * What did the facilitator synthesis surface that you hadn't considered? * Would you use this dual-role technique for real decisions going forward? What types of decisions benefit most? * π¬ ''Run this exercise with a colleague in the room. Have them choose different expert roles than you did for the same problem β the role selection itself reveals different priorities.'' (Social Learners) == β¬οΈ Level up == Ready for more? Try [[The Handoff Protocol|AC-Intermediate-01]] β where you'll split these roles across separate AI sessions and learn to manage handoffs between them. Back to [[Agent Collaboration|Agent Collaboration]] [[Category:AI Fluency Playbook]] [[Category:Exercises]] [[Category:Agent Collaboration Exercises]]
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to GW AI Fluency Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
GW AI Fluency Wiki:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)