@LongChenNotes: I ran this Stanford method several times today. The model itself isn't that impressive—it's something Stanford previously made public, later distilled into four sets of prompts by this guy. But what I found truly remarkable is that you must integrate a model like Opus 4.8 (or 5.5 Pro), or one that can access a large amount of external information.

I ran this Stanford method several times today. The model itself isn't that impressive—it's something Stanford previously made public, later distilled into four sets of prompts by this guy. But what I found truly remarkable is that you must integrate a model like Opus 4.8 (or 5.5 Pro), or one that can access a large amount of external information. The first prompt is nothing special—it just interprets from the perspectives of several experts, which is just different viewpoints. The second one, the contradiction map, is particularly valuable. It creates collisions, and while colliding, it seeks evidence—essentially debating. 1. Debating requires arguments and supporting evidence; it constantly searches for evidence to back up claims. 2. This process is very valuable—you see a lot of real information and statements that support it, allowing you to judge credibility along the way. 3. The final output may include a point you never knew before, and this point is widely agreed upon, with strong evidence links and article support. So that's the most impressive part I've tested. The final output can be imagined as a deep research report for your boss—very reliable, well-reasoned, and evidence-based. It could also be material for a college student to present during an interview, leaving plenty of room for imagination. It's not just an ordinary research report; it gives you accurate, multi-perspective views on an issue, along with a complete package that is highly persuasive.