Why AI answers feel generic — and how to get specific ones
Ask a single AI for advice and you get the same five sensible bullet points everyone gets: know your audience, start small, measure results. It is not wrong — it is the averaged wisdom of the internet, hedged so it cannot embarrass anyone. Averaged advice is generic by construction, and generic advice decides nothing.
Specificity comes from forcing commitment. Decidi assigns your question to named expert personas — chosen from 86 — that each argue from one sharp lens with a stated point of view, across several independent frontier models. A First-Principles Thinker rebuilds the problem from scratch, a Pragmatist cuts it to what ships, a Devil’s Advocate attacks the comfortable middle, and the moderator is required to pick a direction and defend it. The verdict commits — a recommendation with reasons, risks and next steps grounded in your actual situation — and a Final QA audit reviews it before you see it.
- Personas argue committed positions — no even-handed bullet-point mush
- Your context drives the debate: attach the doc, the numbers, the constraint
- The safe middle answer gets attacked on purpose, not defaulted to
- A verdict that picks a direction and says why — with the trade-off named
- The generic option only wins if it genuinely wins the argument
- Depth scales with stakes: Quick, Standard or Deep
Part of: Problems we solve
Instead of five hedged bullet points: one committed recommendation for your specific situation, the reasoning behind it, the strongest case against, and the first concrete step.
Common questions
Why do AI answers all sound the same?
Because a language model predicts the most likely helpful-sounding response, which is the average of everything it has read — then tuning sands off whatever edge was left, since bold specific claims are riskier to reward than safe general ones. The result is competent, hedged, interchangeable advice.
Will better prompts fix generic answers?
They help — role, context and constraints all sharpen the output — but you are still sampling one model’s averaged view, now better dressed. The step-change comes from structure: opposed experts forced to commit to positions and rebut each other produce specific arguments a single prompt cannot, however well written.
How do Decidi personas make answers specific?
Each persona argues from one named lens with an explicit point of view and a blind spot it must own — a CFO argues the numbers, a Contrarian argues the unpopular case, a Pragmatist argues what actually ships. Debate between committed positions surfaces the specifics, and the moderator must resolve it into a direction rather than a list.
What if the generic advice is actually right?
Sometimes it is — conventional wisdom exists for a reason. The difference is that in a council the conventional answer has to win an argument against sharp alternatives instead of appearing by default. If it survives, you can act on it with real confidence; if it does not, you have found something better.
Try it on your own decision
Put your question to a council of GPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok — they debate it, a Final QA audit reviews it, and you get one clear verdict. 1,500 free credits to start — no sign-up, no card required.
Start free