Have fun!

What do you wish you understood better? 👇 I want to hear from everyone. Every level. Day one or day one thousand. There's no question too small, too basic, or too "I feel like I should already know this." If you've ever wondered how something works, what something means, or how to do it, that's exactly what I want. Two quick things 👇 1️⃣ Vote in the poll for the big topics you want more of. 2️⃣ Drop your specific question in the comments. The more specific, the better. The comments can serve as building a list from your answers. The creators in this group are incredible, and once we know what you're asking for, we can make the content that answers it. (This is a post aimed at helping all of us make more engaging content) Even if you mostly read and rarely post, this is an opportunity to have someone write about something you may not have an answer for. One question from you might be the exact thing ten other people were too shy to ask. 😊 We learn together, we grow together, we win together! 🤓💪🏆Bas Question: What do you want us to make more content on?

So this one is the ultimate Clief Notes community bringing disparate threads together post. So reader, consider this your warning upfront. @Alyshia Perri and I were talking and she was keen to get feedback on her entry in the coach competition. I tried to do that in DM to begin with, and then realised I was babbling. I asked her permission to fork it and make my edits so I could *show* her what I was trying to describe and she gave me that permission. None of the rest of this happens without her and she also gave me permission to post this. So here’s a brave woman who’s willing to let me link to a repo showing how I messed with her baby because I couldn’t find better words for the teaching. Please tell her how awesome she is, because that is *gutsy*. One of the coaching offerings in this repo was “board mode” which runs an idea past three different perspectives, each with a different agenda and angle of attack to help the user. I’m going to be upfront and say these sorts of mechanics in AI are generally not to my taste for a bunch of reasons. I don’t think they are effective, let’s keep it to that. But on my mind was the recent podcast by @Curtis Hays and @Brooke Hays showing the impact of using Jungian thinking archetypes / Myers-Briggs profiles to genuinely give the way agents approach things different flavours. What I did: - I got the model to do a sub-agent pass first using the roles as written - I took the three roles as stated and identified which profiles applied to these roles from my point of view - the skeptical stakeholder got “ESTJ”, the peer who has been burned got “ISFJ”, future self got “INFJ”. Then we did it again and compared the outputs - I added two new roles that I felt were missing - the logic stress tester (INTP) and the values-holder (INFP) - I felt off the results of these that Amund as the synthesiser was missing a trick. I tried two separate synthesis passes (over the first rounds, the second round, and all five together) - one using an ENFJ synthesiser and another using an INTJ one.