Getting feedback on a plan or implementation is valuable because you get a fresh set of eyes. Using multiple models may help though it always feels a bit silly to me (if nothing else you’re increasing non-determinism because you know have to understand 2 LLM’s quirks).
But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer.
If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.
I understand. My point is that the personas are generally not a good idea and that there are much simpler and more predictable ways of getting better results.
I get where you're coming from, especially since role playing was so vital in early models in a way that is no longer necessary, or even harmful; however, when designing a complex system of interactions, there's really no way around it. And as humans we do this constantly, putting on a different hat for different jobs. When I'm wearing my developer hat, I have to reason about the role of each component in a system, and when I use an agent to serve in that role, by curating it's context and designating rules for how I want it to behave, I'm assigning it a persona. What's more, I may prime the context user and assistant messages, as examples of how I want it to respond. That context becomes the agent's personality--it's persona.
But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer.
If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.