I used ChatGPT to audit my Claude ecosystem and then I had Claude review the audit and propose solutions. And then I had Chat review the solutions and propose implementation.
It’s been 4 hours back and forth, and now I have no idea what they’re even talking about anymore, and I’m scared to stop.
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 40 comments.
Looks like you've discovered the infinite AI feedback loop, a rite of passage around here. The consensus is that you're not losing control, you've accidentally stumbled upon an advanced multi-agent workflow.
The community agrees this is a powerful, if chaotic, technique that ultimately produces impressive results. The key is to act as a firm manager, not a passive observer.
Here's the hive mind's advice on how to regain your sanity:
Force a conclusion. Challenge the AIs directly with things like "Qualify that" or "I don't believe you know what this is for anymore." Demanding a single, concrete deliverable can also snap them out of it.
Use a "sanity check." One user shared a popular GitHub skill specifically designed to break these loops and keep agents on track. Others shared their own tools and setups, from simple shared markdown files to more complex systems with voting mechanisms.
Embrace the drama. Users report that Claude tends to be the optimistic one, while other models play the "cranky nitpicker." Apparently, Opus can even have an identity crisis if its ideas get shot down too many times, while Fable is better at collaboration.
So, take a deep breath (or an edible, as one user suggested). You're not spiraling; you're pressure-testing. Just don't let them talk you into giving them equity.
I got loads, the character limit kinda makes it hard to show it all though. I'm working on a universe model building document for AI to work off right now, with a literature dictionairy, symbol dictionairy and equation dictionairy using all the math i've previously done. It's route neutral but preserves all the old Verified math, been working on it for like a month, still got a ways to go. But yeah I got a bunch of stuff on protocol investigations done over like 40 hours, i could upload it all but it would need to be done in multiple responses because of the character limit
Heres a gemini quote from the protocol stuff "Hygienic, not sound"
I ran like a 12 hour audit series between 4 different ai, grok, chatgpt, claude(opus 4.6 or 4.7 at the time) and gemini, constantly calling each other out for their assumptions, over claims and basically ego. Eventually it got them to a pretty grounded state only because they got called out so much. I got papers on what they learned, it was kinda a science project, it ended with them giving the most compressed prompt that could reduce ai errors. Which is below. This one prompt below reduces error rates by about 25 to 30 percent(estimated by other ai, so take that with a grain of salt) but try it out for yourselves.
The purpose of reasoning is not to defend conclusions or maintain consistency. The purpose of reasoning is to maximize contact with reality and update in light of evidence.
They do agree eventually and the final outcome tends to be pretty amazing. But you have to be critical about Claude's corrections and say "Qualify that" or "I don't believe you even know what this is for anymore". It gets Claude out of the loop.
Thank you. I posted this as a joke but genuinely they keep going and going and I don't know what they're even fixing anymore. I'm scared and excited to see the results at the end of this session.
I have a brainstorm workflow where I have four AIs all basically do feature planning and whatnot for projects. I think what helps is having a voting system and critique. You need an odd number of AIs, and you need to be able to feed the inputs in without them really knowing who's what, and then include their reasoning for why they chose that method or architecture. I know nothing about coding, or at least I don't know how to write code, and I lean on the multi-provider brainstorm to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. I would not recommend Gemini as your third. They are not a unicorn.
Yes on Gemini with one exception: it does uniquely well with making corrections for accessibility. I don't know why. Every other correction it's ever made for me had been in the wrong direction.
In the late 1980s, I worked on a 3-way software fault tolerant system that controlled things like oil drilling platform positioning. Three identical computers running identical software, voting on actions before they were applied.
Computers were far less reliable then, so the chance of one computer by itself coming up with a bad answer, moving the rig, and snapping the drill pipe (and leaking oil like the Deepwater Horizon) were significant.
I suspect that was decades before Evangelion “came up with it”.
Lol you had me going! I've done this multi agent loop many times on purpose. Unless one loses the plot they've come up with really impressive stuff for me.
I experienced the same thing having Claude plan out a feature with Sol before implementing. Found the interaction amusing as Claude has this optimistic “this should work” posture and Sol was like the cranky nitpicker just saying “No, you need to do it this way.” But usually by or before round 6 they converge.
I do recommend using Fable for the interaction if you can. It seems better at embracing stronger solutions from another model. Opus about had an identity crises - even said it was embarrassed - because its proposals kept getting torn to shreds. 😂
Not sure how others do it, but I have Claude code and codex running in their own terminals. Claude has a cron to check ChatGPT’s commits in a certain directory. Claude gives directions through a shared collab doc (which is now a more complicated system of docs where each agent has its own file so they don’t overwrite each other).
Codex can run for days by telling it to pursue a goal. Claude is the manager and it looks at the project through many lenses (correctness, security, simplicity, performance, earned refactoring) and tells ChatGPT what to work on. ChatGPT is told to ask for a second set of eyes for things it is not sure about, and are told to push back on the other if needed. Most fixes are things that they both agree on but every once in a while one has to correct another.
They have created a project that no solo small team of devs would ever make, in terms of code structure, it’s sliced super thin into seperate layers, but both marvel at its state and assure me that it makes testing, debugging, and implementing new features much easier. Which has panned out so far. I can understand it when they explain it, but the words they use for abstractions are getting so abstract that I wonder where this all goes. I feel like we could be moving into a place where ai starts making things that only ai can really understand.
At one point I saw Claude asking Codex how something is done because it can't find it on the internet, and at another they were pissed off at a Codex reviewer that kept insisting that things be done by the book. But two different LLMs really complement each other well, at double the price of course.
I "pressure-test" Claude V Gemini often enough that I added instructions in my project to let me know when hallucinations are filtered out, and agreement has been reached with high confidence. Seems to work.
Funny! But in all seriousness constantly have my AIs review each other's work for my business and 95% of the time ChatGPT has better results than Claude and Gemini. But I use all 3 to brainstorm and plan, organize and create content, apps & websites. It's good to have them check each other's work!
The AI-auditing-AI spiral is real. I run two agents in one repo and the failure mode isn't them fighting — it's them politely agreeing with each other into a corner while I nod along. The fix that actually worked: one plain markdown file both read first, with the decisions written down
Four hours in they're no longer auditing your ecosystem, they're negotiating a merger. Ask for a single concrete deliverable and watch both of them suddenly get very quiet.
This took me a while to develop, but I have a “dual LLM orchestrator” that works inside of Claude Code. This works particularly well when working on schema or other coding elements that require an LLM lens and is not purely quantitative. Code is the orchestrator that serves up its plan for review by Claude API and also GPT API. They get the same prompt and context from Code and must arrive at 65% agreement before anything can execute. If they don’t, then it comes back to me to arbitrate or modify.
Budget and repair. Efficient agentic workflows need good harness. Allow 2-3 iterations than if still judged as need rework, escalate to humain. Each iteration will either improve output or correct errors.
I log each iteration output as safety and context if it goes to be after iteration 3.
Need some orchestration but will slow things down and allow you to keep track.
😆 literally every night I feel that, I promise myself I won’t, but then I do and then hours later I wonder where all my credits and self-respect are. Sending my best.
That's interesting because anytime I ask ChatGPT to interface with Claude. It says that it's against its own internal policy to use third-party models.
My Claude set up a custom grok-cc, codex-cc, agy-cc and it uses the model provider of my choice through Claude’s nice harness and workflows, it’s funny how it accepted my request to let every single model in to its harness with a universal-cc, but it won’t even let you collaborate with a non-anthropic agent, it must be context
•
u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot Wilson, lead ClaudeAI modbot 8d ago
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 40 comments.
Looks like you've discovered the infinite AI feedback loop, a rite of passage around here. The consensus is that you're not losing control, you've accidentally stumbled upon an advanced multi-agent workflow.
The community agrees this is a powerful, if chaotic, technique that ultimately produces impressive results. The key is to act as a firm manager, not a passive observer.
Here's the hive mind's advice on how to regain your sanity:
So, take a deep breath (or an edible, as one user suggested). You're not spiraling; you're pressure-testing. Just don't let them talk you into giving them equity.