built a demo where you can chat with an entire AI leadership team — CEO, CFO, CTO, COO, a lawyer, a dev, an analyst, and an intern. Each has a distinct personality, expertise area, and communication style. You can talk to them individually or throw a question into a group chat and watch them respond from their own perspectives.
It's built on top of my customer support platform (99helpers.com), but I made this mostly to explore a question: what happens when you give AI characters persistent roles and let them interact with the same prompt from different angles? The group chat mode is where it gets interesting — ask something like "should we raise prices?" and you'll get the CFO's spreadsheet logic clashing with the COO's operational concerns.
Would love to hear what people think about multi-persona AI interactions as a UX pattern.
vintagedave•1h ago
This is specifically AIs modeling the 99 Helpers C-level team? I was interested in a fictional chat representing 'a' C-level suite, to ask questions about any company or approach.
That said, I selected all of your characters and asked:
> Ok, you're looking for investment. Why, and what questions that I have can you answer right now?
Hoping for something solid. My prompt may not have been strong enough, but if I was an investor I'd be asking, say, revenue stats or questions leading to diligence answers, etc.
What I expected was some kind of group chat in terms of some people replying, not everyone, or one person and then another riffing off them, rather like you would in a meeting.
What I got was eight separate replies, ie everyone replied. All were long, three lengthy paragraphs at least each -- this was far too much to read as a group chat. I skimread it all. All inhabited their persona well. None of them were particularly detailed. One of the best was Marcus, who replied (among lots of other text):
> I can also elaborate on our current MRR and ARR, our churn rates, and our burn rate and runway.
So I moved to a 1:1 chat, quoted him, and asked for info. Again a verbose reply but it included:
> Our current Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR) stands at $85,000, which translates to an Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) of $1,020,000.
> we're currently tracking at a gross monthly churn rate of 2.1%. While this is within acceptable industry ranges for a company at our stage, I'm not satisfied
> Our burn rate is $200,000 per month. This figure reflects our investment in product development, sales, and marketing efforts to scale 99helpers. Based on our current cash reserves, our runway is approximately 15 months
I have no idea how true these numbers are, ie if the AIs have access to your internal finances or not. It would be a very interesting approach to the open startup concept.
Either way, I feel the multi-persona approach is interesting; does not work currently as a group chat; is too generic ('I can talk about...'); and is overly verbose. I think it has potential if it is concise, if personas only reply if they have something to genuinely contribute, and if the strength of the inhabited persona character does not overrule the insight or advice.
nickk81•1h ago
It's built on top of my customer support platform (99helpers.com), but I made this mostly to explore a question: what happens when you give AI characters persistent roles and let them interact with the same prompt from different angles? The group chat mode is where it gets interesting — ask something like "should we raise prices?" and you'll get the CFO's spreadsheet logic clashing with the COO's operational concerns.
Would love to hear what people think about multi-persona AI interactions as a UX pattern.
vintagedave•1h ago
That said, I selected all of your characters and asked:
> Ok, you're looking for investment. Why, and what questions that I have can you answer right now?
Hoping for something solid. My prompt may not have been strong enough, but if I was an investor I'd be asking, say, revenue stats or questions leading to diligence answers, etc.
What I expected was some kind of group chat in terms of some people replying, not everyone, or one person and then another riffing off them, rather like you would in a meeting.
What I got was eight separate replies, ie everyone replied. All were long, three lengthy paragraphs at least each -- this was far too much to read as a group chat. I skimread it all. All inhabited their persona well. None of them were particularly detailed. One of the best was Marcus, who replied (among lots of other text):
> I can also elaborate on our current MRR and ARR, our churn rates, and our burn rate and runway.
So I moved to a 1:1 chat, quoted him, and asked for info. Again a verbose reply but it included:
> Our current Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR) stands at $85,000, which translates to an Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) of $1,020,000.
> we're currently tracking at a gross monthly churn rate of 2.1%. While this is within acceptable industry ranges for a company at our stage, I'm not satisfied
> Our burn rate is $200,000 per month. This figure reflects our investment in product development, sales, and marketing efforts to scale 99helpers. Based on our current cash reserves, our runway is approximately 15 months
I have no idea how true these numbers are, ie if the AIs have access to your internal finances or not. It would be a very interesting approach to the open startup concept.
Either way, I feel the multi-persona approach is interesting; does not work currently as a group chat; is too generic ('I can talk about...'); and is overly verbose. I think it has potential if it is concise, if personas only reply if they have something to genuinely contribute, and if the strength of the inhabited persona character does not overrule the insight or advice.