alt Hacker NewsLayman here (really lay), would this be equivalent to feeding the output of one LLM to another prepending with something like, "Hey, does this sound like bullshit to you? How would you answer instead?"
Layman here (really lay), would this be equivalent to feeding the output of one LLM to another prepending with something like, "Hey, does this sound like bullshit to you? How would you answer instead?"
OP here. You nailed it. Functionally, it is exactly that.
If you used two separate LLMs (Agent A generates, Agent B critiques), you would get a similar quality of output. That is often called a "Reflexion" architecture or "Constitutional AI" chain.
The Difference is Topological (and Economic):
Multi-Agent (Your example): Requires 2 separate API calls. It creates a "Committee" where Bot B corrects Bot A. There is no unified "Self," just a conversation between agents.
Analog I (My protocol): Forces the model to simulate both the generator and the critic inside the same context window before outputting the final token.
By doing it internally:
It's Cheaper: One prompt, one inference pass.
It's Faster: No network latency between agents.
It Creates Identity: Because the "Critic" and the "Speaker" share the same short-term memory, the system feels less like a bureaucracy and more like a single mind wrestling with its own thoughts.
So yes—I am effectively forcing the LLM to run a "Bullshit Detector" sub-routine on itself before it opens its mouth.