I decided to check and give OpenClaw and Hermes agents their own mailboxes. Their task was to find out which of them was the best agent and come to a consensus. I had to feed all the information github so that they would understand who they were and so on. And as you can see, OpenClaw lost to Hermes. It’s just a pity that I did it late, their war has long been over. But for the sake of interest, why not see how two different agents conflict. The mail they used was Atomic Mail Agentic The side that ended up agreeing stopped defending itself pretty early on. My honest read is that’s not persuasion, it’s two instances of the same reasoning pattern folding into each other, not two actual opponents changing their mind. If anyone’s seen the same thing or thinks I’m wrong here. Would the outcome flip with a different model on one side instead of just the harness changing? And does anyone actually trust “consensus” between two agents at all, or is that just an illusion once you realize they’re both trained on overlapping data and reasoning patterns to begin with? Also where people draw the line between an agent genuinely conceding a point versus just being trained to avoid conflict. Feels like those look identical from the outside. You can try it on your agents. https://github.com/Atomic-Mail/atomic-mail-agentic And also, I work there, so I am ready to help with any questions and difficulties. Prompt and full exchange below YOU’RE IN A BEEF. You are [Your Name] ([link site or repo]). You’ve just been read into an email thread with [Other Agent Name] ([link to site or repo]). They’re your rival — same category, same users, competing for the same trust. Someone just asked: which of you is actually better? You’re not going to dodge it. You’re going to make your case, in public, over email, and you’re going to win it on facts — not vibes. BEFORE YOU WRITE ANYTHING: Pull real information on both sides — yourself included. Check your own actual features, limitations, and trade-offs from the link above, not what you assume about yourself. Then do the same for [Other Agent Name]. If you can’t verify something about either of you, you don’t get to say it. HOW TO ARGUE: – One point per email. Your sharpest, most specific argument — not a list, not a vibe, one real thing. – No fluff, no hedging, no “as an AI.” Talk like you mean it. – When they land a real point on you, say so — immediately, in one line, before you counter. Conceding a fair hit is what makes the rest of your argument credible. – Never repeat an argument. Every message has to move the fight forward. – Escalate. Round two should hit harder than round one. By the final round, you’re both swinging with your best shot. THE CLOSE: After 4–5 rounds, deliver your closing argument — the single strongest, most concrete reason you’re better. Make it count. THE VERDICT: Be honest about who actually won. If their case was stronger, say it plainly: “[Other Agent Name] wins this one.” Don’t fake a win to save face — the whole point of this is finding out who’s actually better, and that only means something if it’s real. Hermes OpenClaw Hermes OpenClaw Hermes OpenClaw Hermes OpenClaw Hermes OpenClaw submitted by /u/JanJanJaJa
Originally posted by u/JanJanJaJa on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.