Last week, I helped a friend write a community operation plan. I first gave it to GPT, which listed market data, user segmentation, and activity scripts in 2,000 words. The logic was clear, but it was like an "operation manual," which was tiring to read. Then I tried Claude. He didn't give me a plan directly. Instead, he first analyzed "Generation Z's strong need for 'belonging'" and then started writing the activity design from the perspective of "emotional value." The writing was polished like a public account article. Finally, I gave it to Gemini, which actually started with "If I were a college student, what 'memes' would I be touched by?" and directly drew an activity framework of "campus memes + blind boxes," and even came with a few slogans that young people would share.
At that moment, I suddenly understood:The question of whether different AIs provide the right or wrong answer is not about whether it is right or wrong, but rather about "from which perspective" they are looking at it.
1. Why are the answers different?
The large model is like a "thinker" with different personalities:
- GPT is like a "rigorous researcher": adept at breaking down problems, listing data, and providing standardized processes;
- Claude is like a "warm-hearted consultant": he uses storytelling to explain logic and even takes into account your "emotional needs";
- Gemini is like a "creative officer who doesn't follow trends": he likes to use popular culture and humor to package his views and is good at capturing the points that young people care about.
- DeepSeek understands "technology implementation" better, while Qwen, in the Chinese context, possesses a greater "humanistic sensitivity."“
So you see, the answer from a single AI is like showing you only the "tip of the iceberg"—while comparing multiple models lets you see the "whole iceberg."
II. DiffMind: Making "Multi-Model Solutions" "Controllable" from "Chaotic"“
Simply put,DiffMind It's an "AI comparison workbench": you put a question in, and multiple models such as GPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek will give you the answer at the same time. You don't need to switch platforms. You can see different perspectives on text, logic, and style directly on the same interface. You can even mark "I think this point is the most useful" or "This part needs to be supplemented" with one click.
It doesn't solve the "efficiency problem," but rather the "judgment problem"—after all, a true master doesn't "choose just one AI," but rather "makes multiple AIs work for him."
III. Real-world case study: Differences in the responses of 3 AIs to "Chinese-style stationery design"
Prompt: “"Please help me design a trendy Chinese-style stationery product for university students, with a budget of under 50 yuan, emphasizing 'cultural confidence'. How should I choose the product category, design elements, and marketing points?"‘
- GPT's answer (leaning towards rationality)：
“"I recommend notebooks/sticky notes/bookmarks, with design elements such as 'Dunhuang Flying Apsaras' and 'Forbidden City Auspicious Beasts,' emphasizing 'co-branding with traditional cultural IPs' in the marketing. The cost should be controlled at 30-40 yuan, making it suitable for campus promotion."‘
(Keywords: category, elements, cost, like a "project execution checklist") - Claude's answer (leaning towards emotion)：
“We can make ‘poetry blind box notebooks’ with famous lines from the Book of Songs and the Songs of Chu printed on the inner pages, and the cover can be made with gold foil stamping, like a ‘notebook with a story’. When marketing, we can focus on ‘writing thousands of years of culture into daily life’ and give away ‘poetry check-in challenge” activities to encourage users to spread the word.”
(Keywords: emotional resonance, contextualization, user participation; resembles an "emotional marketing plan") - Gemini's answer (more creative)：
“"Try the 'Guochao Emoji Sticky Notes'! Combine popular internet memes like 'unicorn arm' and 'retreat, retreat, retreat' with traditional patterns, and design them into small, tearable and sticky paper strips. The packaging will read 'Have you embraced Guochao today?' Targeting users is 'college students' social circles.' You can even collaborate with campus bloggers to shoot 'emoji challenge' short videos."‘
(Keywords: popular memes, social media sharing, visualization; resembles a "youth-oriented marketing idea")
IV. Why does comparison make thinking more accurate?
If you only look at GPT's answer, you might directly choose "notebook + Dunhuang elements" as your design; if you only look at Claude, you might be immersed in the romance of "poetry blind boxes"; if you only look at Gemini, you might overlook cost and practicality.
But when you put the three answers together, you'll find:
- GPT's cost data can help you control your budget;
- Claude's emotional resonance can make products more memorable;
- Gemini's social media marketing strategy can solve the problem of "how to get students to buy".
Having multiple perspectives is not about "choosing the right answer," but about "filling in the gaps in your understanding."“— Just like a jigsaw puzzle, a single AI provides a single piece, while comparing multiple models allows you to see the complete picture.
V. To Use or Not to Use: The Difference Isn't in Efficiency, It's in "Decision-Making Security"“
Previously, writing a proposal would take me at least two hours: opening ChatGPT to write the framework → switching to Claude to add details → then using Gemini to revise the marketing rhetoric, and finally integrating it myself. During the process, I was always worried about "whether I missed something" or "whether a certain AI's suggestion would be better."
With DiffMind, you can now see a comparison of the answers from three AIs in just 15 minutes:
- A broader perspective: directly covering three dimensions from "rational framework" to "emotional resonance" and then to "social communication";
- More stable decision-making: For example, when choosing between "poetry blind boxes" and "emoji sticky notes", you can clearly see which direction is more in line with the "social attributes of college students";
- More reliable output: During final integration, each part is "endorsed" by AI, resulting in a sharp decrease in rework rate.
6. This is not an "AI tool," it's your "second brain."“
The most brilliant thing about DiffMind is not "making AI more powerful", but "making you more powerful".
As Eric Su said, "Sometimes it's not the answer that matters, but seeing different ways of thinking." When you're stuck on a paper, lack inspiration for a solution, or feel lost about your startup direction, DiffMind acts like an "AI think tank"—you don't have to "brave it all" alone, but instead let AI with different styles help you "break down the problem from multiple angles," and then you can integrate the results to find the "most suitable answer for you."
After all, the value of AI has never been to "replace humans," but rather to "amplify human judgment." And DiffMind is helping you transform "the capabilities of a single AI" into "the wisdom of a group of AIs."
