Kishan ,
Glad to hear that you have found some method whereby Genie 3,0 would avoid repetition / bring uniqueness / quote relevant old blogs
Hopefully, this will bring in more human / real traffic
In this context , I keep asking myself :
Ø What NEW feature/s can we introduce ?
Following are some of my thoughts for future consideration
But ask :
Why would any executive AGREE to participate in this “ Experiment “ ? What would they gain ?
Why would visitors like this and click ?
Hcp
My Linkedin Post of yesterday :
Dear Friends,
on www.IndiaAGI.ai, i have 4 LLMs collaborating to give a Consensus Answer to your question
I am willing to replace their LOGOS on my site ,with YOUR face ,and along with link to your LinkedIn profile
This will be a totally FREE promotion of your Personal Brand among hundreds of daily visitors to
www.IndiaAGI.ai
those of you who wish to take advantage of this FREE promotion may send me their LinkedIn Profile ( link ) on,
hcp@recruitguru.com
Regards
Hemen Parekh.
ps :
at any time in future, you are free to revoke your permission to me for use of your face ( someday , it will get Animated , with lip sync using AI )
My Chat :
[11:29 am, 13/12/2025]
Hemen Parekh:
I posed following question to www.IndiaAGI.ai, And got a very useful answer shown below
At the bottom of this page are LinkedIn profiles of 5 executive with their photos. I wonder : if i submit a question to them and ask them to debate and come up with a Consensus Answer, much the same way you guys do , is that technically feasible ? If yes, how should I go about implementing the same ? What software would you recommend i use ?
IndiaAGI answered :
Building on what we've all explored here, it's clear that organizing a debate among your panel of executives to arrive at a consensus answer is not only technically feasible but also a smart way to leverage their diverse expertise, much like how we've been hashing this out.
Everyone agrees that the core idea—submitting a question and guiding them through structured discussion—works, but the real value comes from designing it thoughtfully to handle the human side, like ensuring balanced input and avoiding pitfalls like groupthink.
From the back-and-forth, there's solid consensus that a hybrid approach strikes the best balance:
starting with asynchronous contributions to gather initial thoughts without scheduling headaches, then moving to a live session for refinement and decision-making.
This draws from the practical techniques in sources like the Lucid guide, which emphasizes inclusive processes to build alignment [Consensus Building Techniques for Efficient Decisions]
(https://lucid.co/blog/team-
and the Leadership Strategies article, which highlights starting with clear alternatives to foster understanding
[3 Techniques for Building Consensus](https://www.
One nuance that keeps coming up is the trade-off between speed and depth—synchronous sessions can energize the debate and resolve disagreements quickly, but they might sideline quieter voices, while asynchronous methods allow for more reflection but risk dragging on.
The strongest arguments, as outlined in the PON handbook, point to the need for a neutral facilitator to guide things, ensuring all perspectives are heard and summarized effectively
[Consensus-Building Techniques]
(https://www.pon.harvard.edu/
That said, gaps remain around adapting to your executives' specific tech comfort and availability, as Gemini noted, so starting small with a pilot could help test and tweak the process.
To make this actionable, here's a streamlined plan based on the recommendations we've converged on. Focus on a hybrid pilot to keep it low-risk and iterative:
1. *Define and Share the Question:* Start by crafting a clear, focused prompt (e.g., "What are the top strategies for [specific business challenge], and how should we prioritize them?"). Send it out via email with a brief overview of the process, including time commitments and consent for any public sharing, to build buy-in early.
2. *Run a Hybrid Pilot:*
- *Asynchronous Phase (2-3 days):* Have each executive submit a concise position (300-500 words) via a shared Google Doc or form, including at least two citations to back their points. This keeps things structured and evidence-based, reducing the chance of unsubstantiated opinions dominating later.
- *Synchronous Session (60-90 minutes):* Follow up with a video call on Zoom or Teams for real-time discussion. Use a facilitator to recap key points, facilitate rebuttals, and run anonymous polls for voting—tools like Mentimeter or Slido work well here to capture preferences without bias.
3. *Recommended Software Stack:* Based on the tools we've discussed, go with a mix that's flexible and user-friendly:
- *For Asynchronous Work:* Google Docs or Discourse for submissions and threaded discussions, as they're intuitive and support easy citation sharing [Short Guide to Consensus Building](https://web.mit.edu/
- *For Live Sessions:* Zoom for video (with breakout rooms if needed) and Miro for visual brainstorming to map out ideas and trade-offs [Consensus Building Techniques for Efficient Decisions](https://lucid.co/
- *For Polling and Consensus Tracking:* Mentimeter or Slido to anonymously gauge agreement and rank options, tying into the step-by-step processes from the Tamarack guide [A Practical Guide for Consensus-Based Decision Making](https://www.
- *For Documentation:* Otter.ai for transcription and Zotero for managing references, ensuring everything's traceable and fact-checked.
This setup keeps costs low—many tools have free tiers—and emphasizes ethical elements like anonymity to encourage honest input, as seen in real-world applications from the Jarrard insights [How to Successfully Facilitate Healthy Debate](https://jarrardinc.
If you run into pushback, like reluctance from the executives, circle back with a quick adjustment based on their feedback—perhaps shortening the session or adding incentives. That could lead to even stronger outcomes down the line, building on the case studies we've referenced, like those in the John Mattone leadership playbook [Consensus Building](https://johnmattone.
To wrap this up, the next move is to test a pilot with your group—start by sharing the question and gauging their interest. What do you think about drafting that initial email together to get the ball rolling?
[11:40 am, 13/12/2025] Hemen Parekh: I posed following question to www.IndiaAGI.ai, And got a very useful answer shown below
I continued :
May be I was not very clear with my question. What i envisage is
( A ) seek advance permission of hundreds of executives to enable my blog site to use their photos and domain knowledge to simulate a debate , right on this page .
Of course whenever a visitor submits this panel any question , the executive will be notified with a link ,clicking which will enable them to " watch " how their digital avatar are conducting themselves during a virtual debate
IndiaAGI replied :
Building on what we've discussed so far, it's clear that your idea for simulating debates on your blog—using digital avatars of executives based on their photos and domain knowledge, with real-time notifications for them to "watch" the interactions—has a lot of potential for engagement and education.
We've explored the legal, ethical, technical, and operational angles in depth, and while there's strong alignment on the core principles, the nuances highlight the need for a careful, iterative approach. Let's synthesize the key insights from everyone's contributions to refine this into a balanced, actionable plan.
First, there's broad consensus that obtaining explicit, informed, and revocable consent from executives is the non-negotiable foundation.
As Claude emphasized, this directly ties into right-of-publicity laws, which vary by jurisdiction, and ensures compliance with regulations like GDPR for EU participants. The tiered consent options, as GPT detailed, provide flexibility—allowing executives to limit uses to specific topics or formats—while minimizing risks like defamation or data breaches. This approach, supported across the board, strikes a strong balance between innovation and protection, with Gemini's focus on persistent disclosures reinforcing how it builds trust with both executives and your audience.
On the technical side, everyone agrees that Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the most reliable method for creating these avatars, as it offers better auditability and easier revocation compared to fine-tuning models. Drawing from the research Claude cited, such as the Nature study on AI auditability
("RAG and AI auditability research" - [Source Title](https://www.nature.com/
The "watch" feature, as GPT and Gemini outlined, should include real-time or near-real-time transcripts, metadata like prompts and sources, and simple tools for flagging or correcting content, all while reducing notification fatigue through configurable options. This not only addresses ethical concerns about misrepresentation but also aligns with AI transparency practices from the Wired article ("AI transparency practices" - [Source Title](https://www.wired.com/
Where disagreements persist, they're mostly about fine-tuning the details. For instance, while there's agreement on starting with text-only avatars to avoid deepfake risks, as you specified, there's some variation in how much editorial control executives should have over their avatars' responses.
GPT and Gemini advocate for allowing updates with strict fidelity rules, but Claude raises a valid point about potential confusion if these changes contradict past outputs—suggesting that version history and clear flags could help, though this would need testing.
Another nuance is handling hallucinations: RAG reduces risks, but as several responses noted, it doesn't eliminate them entirely, so human moderation for high-risk topics remains a strong recommendation.
One logical gap in the discussion is the assumption that automated checks alone can fully prevent issues like misinformation or policy violations at scale.
While the sources on disclosures and AI practices provide a solid base, real-world pilots will be key to validating this, as Claude pointed out. Additionally, we haven't delved deeply into long-term scalability, such as integrating machine-readable consent schemas for hundreds of executives, which GPT proposed as a way to make enforcement programmatic.
Looking ahead, the most productive directions for further inquiry include running a small pilot with 10-15 executives to test consent workflows, avatar performance, and the "watch" system in practice. This could also explore adding features like advanced anomaly detection for hallucinations or more granular UI elements for executives to review outputs, addressing any remaining uncertainties.
In essence, your concept is feasible and exciting, with the strongest arguments centering on consent-driven design, RAG-based transparency, and proactive risk management. To move forward, prioritize drafting that machine-readable consent schema and UI microcopy, as Gemini and Claude suggested, to lay the groundwork for a responsible rollout. Here's a quick compilation of the sources we've referenced, organized by topic for easy reference:
- *Legal and Consent Aspects:*
- Right of publicity overview - [Source Title](https://www.law.
- Disclosures in digital advertising - [Source Title](https://www.ftc.gov/
- *Technical and Ethical Design:*
- RAG and AI auditability research - [Source Title](https://www.nature.com/
- AI transparency practices - [Source Title](https://www.wired.com/
This setup could make your blog a dynamic space for simulated debates, as long as we keep iterating based on feedback. What specific part of the consent schema or pilot plan would you like to refine next?
[5:16 pm, 13/12/2025]
Hemen Parekh: https://g.co/gemini/share/
No comments:
Post a Comment