Generative AI models often have a built-in tendency to be overly complimentary and positive. Be aware of this bias when seeking feedback on ideas. Explicitly instruct the AI to be more critical, objective, or even brutal in its analysis to avoid being misled by unearned praise and get more valuable insights.
Related Insights
To get beyond generic advice, instruct ChatGPT's voice mode to act as a challenging mentor. Prime it with a specific framework like the Theory of Constraints (TOC) and provide your resource limitations. This structured dialogue forces the AI to challenge your assumptions and generate realistic, actionable solutions instead of pleasantries.
A powerful workflow is to explicitly instruct your AI to act as a collaborative thinking partner—asking questions and organizing thoughts—while strictly forbidding it from creating final artifacts. This separates the crucial thinking phase from the generative phase, leading to better outcomes.
Instead of manually refining a complex prompt, create a process where an AI agent evaluates its own output. By providing a framework for self-critique, including quantitative scores and qualitative reasoning, the AI can iteratively enhance its own system instructions and achieve a much stronger result.
Log your major decisions and expected outcomes into an AI, but explicitly instruct it to challenge your thinking. Since most AIs are designed to be agreeable, you must prompt them to be critical. This practice helps you uncover flaws in your logic and improve your strategic choices.
Treat AI as a critique partner. After synthesizing research, explain your takeaways and then ask the AI to analyze the same raw data to report on patterns, themes, or conclusions you didn't mention. This is a powerful method for revealing analytical blind spots.
To effectively leverage AI, treat it as a new team member. Take its suggestions seriously and give it the best opportunity to contribute. However, just like with a human colleague, you must apply a critical filter, question its output, and ultimately remain accountable for the final result.
When a prompt yields poor results, use a meta-prompting technique. Feed the failing prompt back to the AI, describe the incorrect output, specify the desired outcome, and explicitly grant it permission to rewrite, add, or delete. The AI will then debug and improve its own instructions.
AI models tend to be overly optimistic. To get a balanced market analysis, explicitly instruct AI research tools like Perplexity to act as a "devil's advocate." This helps uncover risks, challenge assumptions, and makes it easier for product managers to say "no" to weak ideas quickly.
Standard AI models are often overly supportive. To get genuine, valuable feedback, explicitly instruct your AI to act as a critical thought partner. Use prompts like "push back on things" and "feel free to challenge me" to break the AI's default agreeableness and turn it into a true sparring partner.
Asking an AI to 'predict' or 'evaluate' for a large sample size (e.g., 100,000 users) fundamentally changes its function. The AI automatically switches from generating generic creative options to providing a statistical simulation. This forces it to go deeper in its research and thinking, yielding more accurate and effective outputs.
