<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>AI in Practice on Chris Reddington</title><link>https://chrisreddington.com/series/ai-in-practice/</link><description>Recent content in AI in Practice on Chris Reddington</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://chrisreddington.com/series/ai-in-practice/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Jury Pattern: a mixture of critics for AI code review</title><link>https://chrisreddington.com/blog/mixture-of-critics/</link><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://chrisreddington.com/blog/mixture-of-critics/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;When I first asked an agent to review its own work, the results were underwhelming. It gave the work a glowing review (of course it did, it had just written it!). Even when I ask the same model to review in a separate session, the pattern holds: a critique might surface caveats, but rarely substantial flaws or disagreement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&amp;rsquo;s what I hope to solve with this pattern. In human code review, we seek out someone with a different perspective because we know that someone who shares our assumptions is unlikely to catch the gaps. The same applies to models.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>