Last week, I helped an international student friend revise her thesis. She used GPT to write about "the impact of AI on education," but her advisor said the "case studies were too outdated." When she switched to Claude, her advisor said the "data sources were vague." Finally, she used DiffMind to submit the paper to three AIs simultaneously and discovered that the combination of GPT's logical framework, Claude's specific cases, and Gemini's youthful perspective resulted in an answer that her advisor praised as "10 times more solid than a single paper."
It turns out that the answers from different AIs contain "different perspectives"—looking at only one answer to a question is like only listening to one person tell you "which way to go," while looking at several answers allows you to know "which road has pitfalls and which road has beautiful scenery."
Scenario: Why do you always feel that "AI answers are wrong"?
Have you ever had this experience?
- When writing the paper, GPT provided "sub-arguments + data", but the case study was from 3 years ago;
- When creating the proposal, Claude wrote "emotional copy" but didn't mention the cost.
- When filming the video, Gemini used the "@Juanwang's Deskmate" meme, but didn't consider whether "elders would watch it."
It's not that AI is stupid, it's that they "learn different things".“GPT has read the most academic papers, Claude understands "emotional communication" better, and Gemini has learned the most "memes" from short video platforms. Like three friends: one is a rigorous academic, one is a warm storyteller, and one is a lively, internet-savvy person—you wouldn't just listen to one person, right?
Second, understanding: The answers from different AIs are actually "different perspectives on thinking".“
Take, for example, "Writing a 30-second TikTok script for college students to 'reject involution'":
- GPT answers(Academic School):
“"Opening: 'Getting overwhelmed by the pressure every day? Getting overwhelmed by studying early in the morning, getting overwhelmed by doing homework late at night,' Middle: 'Stop the pressure! You're not the king of pressure, you're the protagonist of your own life,' Ending: '@The king of pressure deskmate, let's win together'" — The logic is clear, but it's a bit "preachy," and young people might find it "too serious." - Claude's answer(Storytelling style):
“"Opening: 'The flowers by the roadside don't bloom earlier than anyone else; they just bloom at their own pace.' Middle: 'We're the same; we don't need to chase after others.' Ending: 'Forward this to your friend who thinks you're the most enthusiastic.'" — This has strong emotional resonance and vivid imagery, but weak dissemination and guidance, so it's unlikely anyone will forward it. - Gemini's answer(Internet-savvy type):
“"Opening: 'Family, does anyone understand? My 'King of Curry' deskmate is saying 'Ah~ I studied until 3 a.m. last night' again while you were reciting your lessons.' Middle: 'Giving up isn't about giving up, it's about 'taking control of my time.' Ending: 'Dare to @ your 'King of Curry' deskmate?'" — It's witty and highly interactive, but the values are a bit "depressing," and older people might not understand it.
These three answers actually represent the "advantages of different perspectives".“GPT provides logic, Claude provides emotion, and Gemini provides communication—choosing only one is like picking only one apple, while looking at more options allows you to "piece together a whole basket of fruit."
Third, metaphor: It's like asking three friends with different styles to help you come up with a solution.
I once asked entrepreneur Eric, "How many people's opinions do you listen to before making a decision?" He said, "At least three—one to talk about the risks, one to talk about the opportunities, and one to talk about implementation."“
Multiple AI answers, just like these three friends:
- GPT is a "risk advisor": it helps you identify logical flaws and avoid "assumptions";
- Claude acts as an "emotional advisor": reminding you "whether the user will be moved" and avoiding being "too rational";
- Gemini acts as a "practical consultant": telling you "whether young people will share this" and avoiding anything that's "too academic."
You wouldn't just listen to one person say "this solution is good," right? Multiple AI answers allow you to "verify the solution from different dimensions," filling in "partial ideas" into "complete decisions."
IV. Benefits: Looking at multiple answers, the real benefit is "saving time and reducing risk".“
Previously, revising my thesis required switching between three AI platforms; now I use... DiffMindYou can see three answers in one window:
- No need to remember "which AI is good at which cases" or "which data is more accurate", just compare "where there are loopholes and where there are strengths";
- There's no need to guess whether the answer is right or wrong; by combining multiple perspectives, the correct part will naturally emerge.
- As Claire said, "Before, getting stuck would be devastating, but now, if I throw in a sentence, three AIs will come up with their ideas at the same time, and I can just pick the most reliable one"—efficiency is improved by 3 times, and I can also avoid "falling into pitfalls".
V. Conclusion: Having multiple answers is not about "comparing right and wrong," but about "finding the optimal solution."“
The answers from different AIs are essentially "different thinking tools": some help you build a framework, some help you fill in the details, and some help you connect with reality. DiffMindIt lets you "have all three tools at the same time"—no need to switch platforms, no need to remember "which one is good at what," just ask questions, and let the AIs "show their skills" for the rest, while you "collect the pearls."
The next time you use AI, try asking, "Who else can give me a different answer?" You'll find that...The most reliable decisions often lie in the differences between different answers.。
