What Five AI Models Agreed On (And Why I Didn't Believe Them)
A few days ago I installed a Claude Code skill called llm-council . It's a nice adaptation of an Andrej Karpathy idea: instead of asking one AI a question and taking its word for it, you run the question past five advisors, have them peer-review each other anonymously, and let a chairman synthesize a verdict. It worked. I liked it. And then I noticed the thing that bothered me. Five advisors, one brain The skill spawns its five advisors as Claude sub-agents. Same model, same weights, same session. The only thing that varies between them is the prompt — one is told to play the Contrarian, another the Expansionist, and so on. Which means the disagreement is manufactured. The Contrarian objects because I told it to object, not because it sees something the others missed. And more importantly: whatever that model can't see, none of the five can see. You get one opinion wearing five costumes, and the peer-review round is a model grading four other outputs of itself. Karpat...