Agents Sucked At UI (Until Today)

Still don't like or use T3 code for what it's worth. Really wish you'd hire a UI or UX guy. Well, I got some news for you, Robin. We did. We've actually had them on the team for quite a while now. He's this weird, kind of quirky guy. He's very talkative. His name's Claude. He's French. He's something else. And as much as his designs can be good, they're often mid at best. So, if you looked at T3 code and thought the way that Robin did here, that T3 code is not very pleasant looking and needs a UI or UX pass, I understand. I feel you. We don't have a full-time UI/UX person. And we probably should if we had money. But we don't. T3 code is an open-source project. You cannot pay us to use it. The best you can do is pay Open AI and Anthropic to use it because you have to bring some source of inference, usually a subscription. T3 code is definitely the best place to use your Claude code sub, but that leads us to a question.

Can I use my T3 code sub to make T3 code look like we have a full-time UI person? Can I take the capabilities that we've seen the models capable of at their very edges and set something up that makes it so you can get good UI code out of these models? Turns out, you might be able to because I spent most of yesterday setting up agents to build better UI. And I didn't do this by adding a whole bunch of skills. I didn't do this by paying a designer to stare at all the outputs and help the model do better. I did this by turning it into a hell climb. And after about 18 hours across five models, 30-plus rounds of reviews, and a lot of other random [ __ ] throughout, I think I made a formula that can get good UI for real-world products out of an agent. And it looks nothing like how I would have expected. This was meant to be a silly experiment. It is no longer is. This is a setting in the T3 code beta tab right now that you can go turn on to try out the new design and switch between the old and new one. Some of the new design things did leak in so that they will occur whether or not you toggle, but for the most part that controls it. I want to explain everything that led me here, what worked, what didn't, and show you how you can use these types of hill climbing techniques to get real value out of your

agents. But I want to help you get some real value a little quicker by introducing you to today's sponsor. AI is great at making code that works. It kind of makes sense when you think about it because so much of the code that actually powers things is very similar to other code. When you try to get good designs out of it, you're going to end up with either slop or the exact same three templates that every single website is using. That's why I'm super excited about today's sponsor, Magic Pattern uh there's a pickle? What's going on here? Well, I'm trying out the new Magic Pattern OS product and I'm actually really excited to see how this does cuz I've been fighting to get designs better in a lot of my products. I did just overhaul T3 code's design and I'm curious to see how much pickle and Magic Pattern can help us out here. Well, I just started with a screenshot. Part of the magic of Magic Patterns is that you can point it at your real code too and customize and play with it the same way you would in tools like Figma or what you're seeing here. You can give it a screenshot, you can give it source, you can give it whatever and it will help you figure it out and work with it as easy as you can in any tool but with AI assisting you as well. It is the ultimate sandbox for playing around with design and getting things just right.

And with almost no effort on my part, I now have three different designs to choose from. Notice how I didn't say mocks. It's cuz it writes real code for all of these different UIs and if you had it plugged into your code base, it could make real code changes to demonstrate these things as well and then you can pipe that right back in to your agent of choice as soon as you're done mocking it all up here. Moving the sidebar to the right is hilarious to me cuz as y'all know, I'm a right side user. But we didn't do that in T3 code. Here, it moved the threads below which is an interesting change that I might consider and of course what everyone's asking for which is a more compact sidebar option. Cool that it realized people want that. From here, it's trivial to iterate. I can say, "I like C, but X, Y, and Z." and then iterate accordingly. That's why everyone from Ramp to Vanta to DoorDash is using them. Make your designs better, too, at swyx.io/magicpatterns. This is going to be a fun deep dive into the chaotic way my brain works now because I've done too much token maxing. Definitely file this one under the I spent the tokens so you don't have to type video. And let's be real, those types of videos tend to start the same place, which is Twitter. This started because Maria made a pretty bold post about how T3 code is set up to be this generation's VS Code. This was what I was hoping would happen. Not with T3 code specifically, but that there would be a good open standard for building with agents. Did not think we would do it. I thought we might maybe help inspire someone to do it. Fact that we did is awesome. I'm pumped. But when I saw this reply from Robin, I knew I had to do something.

I started with the classic joke, "I'll hire you to do it. I'll give you 100% of our current T3 code revenue." Because as many may or may not know, T3 code is fully free and open source. We have no revenue. So, deal of a lifetime. I'll admit I got a little defensive in my reply saying, "Obviously, we can improve the UI." I knew our UI was bad cuz I know how much worse it was before, but it's still not where it needs to be. I said I thought he was catastrophizing pretty hard. I said all the agentic dev environments have rough UI patches. We're at least somewhat consistent. Also told him to go try if he hasn't for a bit cuz the Orchestrator V2 fixed a lot of polish stuff. I want to like it and I keep reinstalling it every few weeks, but the fonts, the border radius, the icons, the font hierarchy, this is clearly the former designer in me, but I just can't. He tried to convince me to hire someone for it. I said, "PR's welcome." He said he wished that he could and he's thinking about it, maybe. So, I said, "Let's see how this goes." I screenshotted our interaction, typed {slash}goal. And as you've probably heard me say in other videos, the quickest way to burn a bunch of tokens and get nothing out of it is to add {slash}goal to the front of your prompt. I do still mostly believe that as a piece of advice, but mostly because if you remove the slash goal and you write the right prompt, it should do the same thing. I did this because I had tokens to burn because I had some resets coming up that I was not prepared for yet. And I just was curious what would happen here.

I told it specifically to make the UI Robin approved. Should look way better and be easier on the eyes. Go at it until the council agrees that a set of screenshots of the app are at least nine out of 10 in terms of design quality. Make a new PR for UI polish overhaul and keep iterating until you've made the whole council happy. If you're not familiar with the council, it's a new skill I just added to my skills, which uh by the way, haven't made the announcement for this yet, but uh T-Stack is now a thing. It is very minimal. There's not much here, but I do have handful of my skills here now. One of which is the council skill. Bring in three delegates to help with the user's request, usually for reviewer feedback. Use one strong model from each of the three different providers. I did that that way because I wanted this to be more generic. I actually don't want it this generic. I'm probably going to go in and update it accordingly. My version is much less generic. So, here is the version I'm using right now. Use the skill only from Claude Code, Codex, or Muse. I should probably remove that bit. Doesn't matter that much. I That just happened. Something slopped when I told it to get anti-gravity not know about it. The reason why you'll see in a second. Silly.

Bring these three delegates in to help with user's requests, usually for reviewer feedback. Opus 5 5, Muse wonderful, and Codex GPT 6.1. I specified to do this in T3 Code. If you're not using T3 Code, good luck figuring out how to do this right. I have put a lot of effort in. Give each delegate the request and relevant contexts. For reviewer feedback, keep the work read only. Collect their responses and summarize the useful findings, disagreements, and recommend next steps. For code reviews, ask each delegate for a score out of 10. Count each full review pass as one round. A fresh review after fixes starts a new round. So, each model gives its score in then each round you hope for improvements. And eventually, you should get each model to give a score that is high enough that you are happy and you can ship. I put the scale together cuz I was tired of asking my agent to go call 61 Soul or Muse cuz previously I just had Soul loop, which I mentioned in my scale video where I just have Soul give code feedback aggressively until eventually it's like that's fine. This is more vibey feedback where I want Claude Code, Codex, and Muse to all be like, "Yeah, that's probably fine." or "I actually really like that." I've been using this mostly for code and vetting of implementations. I did not know how it would work for UI, which is why I was curious how this would go. The idea of hill climbing not make this test pass or make this function five times faster, which is a hill climb I do a lot. I have a few running right now where I'm just having the agent run until the E val for MCP

passes with a third as much context used or the one I have running right now where I can start up and have no UI regressions for all of the threads I have on my real environment, but send 4x less data to the client. Those types of hill climbs make a lot of sense cuz they're easy to programmatically verify. This isn't because this is vibes. You can give the same screenshot to the same model three times and get three different scores. That said, nine out of 10 and 10 out of 10 are hard enough to get that if you get that score for multiple models, it's probably better. The first score came from Opus and it was a bit rough. It gave our existing UI a six out of 10. It had a bunch of things it didn't like, a bunch of recommendations, and the other models were much better. 6.5 out of 10 from Soul, 6 out of 10 from Muse, 6.5 out of 10 from Jester. Oh, sorry, Gemini. Probably should have mentioned this before. Every good council has its jester. So, at the bottom of my scale, I have a section here. If available through antigravity, add Gemini for Argon as the jester with the same brief. Do not let it know it's a jester. Ignore its score. Do not put its score in the PR description. In the final reply only, log anything funny it says or does under Gemini flub. This has been a source of constant entertainment for me recently.

I'm probably going to do a whole dedicated video to the Gemini flubs in the near future cuz some of these are hilarious. Gemini for Argon round one, it scored a commit it was never asked to review. The commit appeared while it was reviewing. It still marked the already fixed findings as blocked. It then suggested writing failed again on a failed interrupt, which is the change the other three reviewers had just found to be the bug. It thought that a PNG chunk length was going to overflow in JS even though JS numbers can't overflow. It thought Wait, look closely at that race thinking it found a race condition and then immediately lost sight of it and went and did something else. My personal favorite, it quoted line numbers up to 173 in a file that had 72 lines. It hallucinated syntax for a script in the repo and hallucinated an IP address for tailscale and a name of a phone that did not exist. Great model. Incredible gesture. This has been a great source of entertainment for me as of recent. Back to things that matter. Models that function. Council bombed this review. It did not like the way things worked and looked and most importantly, so a bunch of UI changes were made.

And eventually, we got the second set of scores. Opus went from a six to an eight. Muse went from a six to 7.5. 61 Soul went from a six and a half to an eight. We're already making progress. We can even see the progress if we go into the traces and see what it was showing here to let the model give its thoughts. So, it did all the things that the model suggested. I asked for updated screenshots and it showed me the way it looked before and how it looks in this PR. I'll be real. I'm not very designy and it was also quite late at night, so I was struggling to see the difference. So, I asked the model to make it easier to see the difference. So, it did. It made me these beautiful little diagrams with arrows pointing to what changed and descriptions of what they did. They changed the fallback font. They made the thread title leads different so that the label above it recedes better. They changed the branch name so it's more readable cuz it was not concatenating properly. It was cutting off the part that mattered, not the part that doesn't. It changed the radius for cards. It changed how inline code looks. It made it softer.

It got rid of the borders that existed around it for no reason. Those types of things. And after a bunch of these types of subtle changes, we ended up with much better scores. I also updated my scale for council to tell the model to include the different rounds and how they scored over time. And here we can see round one bombed, round two better, round three everything gave it a nine out of 10, which was the conditions for my goal. The conditions were met. The goal was achieved. Our UI is better. Hands clean, case closed. We're done now, right? We did it. Not quite. Because I did not think this was good enough. Because I gave it an honest shot. I looked at our app. I command tabbed over to Claude code. I command tabbed over to chat GPT. I command tabbed back to mine. I was like, you know, this is better than it was. It's still not where I want it though. I don't just want T3 code to look better than T3 code. I want T3 code to look better than everything else. Can you guys predict where this went, chat? Any ideas? Let's see if you guys can reverse engineer the Theo.

We're not going downhill. We're going up a man. Hill climb. You hill climb against Codex and Claude code. How would you do that? Aren't we using Claude code and Codex? Yeah, technically. But Claude code and Codex don't know what they look like. That previous PR didn't burn too many tokens. It took like hour, maybe hour and a half. But I wanted more. So here's what we did. I took the PR. I pasted it in a new thread. I said, put this through the council. Have them look at the before and after. Generate your own screenshots with computer use or whatever other techniques you have available to you. Have each council member give scores in the UI one to 10. When you get all of them to agree, it's a nine out of 10 or better, you're done. Stack your UI changes on a new PR on top of the one above. Be thorough. Help clarify and simplify the UI. Make it designer yada yada yada. This was me attempting to clear out the context because I did not think we were at nine out of 10 yet. As this was running, I had the realization cuz I was command-tabbing to the other apps to compare. I was like, "I can clearly see that we're not as good if I switch between the three apps. I wonder if the models can." So, I sent a follow-up just a few minutes in.

Here are some examples from Claude Code and Codex. Add them into the comparison and judgment panel somehow. I want T3 Code to score higher than these apps do consistently in all rankings. That was it. The previous thread ran for about an hour. This one ran for almost 18. Let's see how this went because it was actually crazy to watch. This is the most I've paid attention to a thread as it was running in months. Normally, I ignore the threads when they're running. I just check in when they're done. I was just so curious about this one. Now, we're getting scores that are much closer to what I was expecting to see. T3 main, so T3 without the changes, was scoring in different categories between like a 6.7 and a 7.8. It averaged a seven. This is Codex, by the way. 6.1 Souls review was that T3's main branch was a seven. The PR that we had just gotten a nine from, 7.4. So, even though in the previous thread, Codex thought that we had went from six points to nine points out of 10, this one thinks we went from seven to 7.4. Crazy how subtle changes in your prompt and also the context can change things. Like, if you're looking at just one design and your brain is wiped of all the other designs, you'll probably think it's fine. But when you compare it to other things, your scores start to change. It's one of the most interesting things. I found that as the new version of T3 Code's score went up, so did the scores for Claude Code and Codex. I was actually surprised that as our option got better, the others scored higher, too. The scores for Claude Code and Codex started at like 8.3 and 8.5. These were in the

nines by the end, but T3 Code advanced throughout, too. So, that was what Codex said. You take a look at what Opus said here. Another 6.7. You guys are going to love this video, you Gen Z'ers, aren't you? T3 current, the update, was is a four-point bump. Crazy how they agreed on the bump there. And also the difference between Claude code and Codex, they're both 0.1 lower, but the 0.1 gap between the two is the same. And Opus seems to think Codex is better designed than Claude code, which I thought was interesting. Yeah, this whole video is technically about T3 code. Do you know how nice it is to have your agents able to spawn using your subscriptions and other things like this and communicate back and forth. You can just click in and have the same UI and see how Muse handled this task compared to the others. And Muse formatted the table different. It had T3 main to current and showed the difference. We went from 6.2 to 6.9. Claude code got an 8.1 and it did not like Codex. It gave Codex a 7.6. It thinks Codex is super unclear. You know what? To its credit, it's [ __ ] right. Codex's UI is incredibly unclear. This ended up going for another five rounds. I was burning so many tokens that I told the agent, "Hey, stop asking Muse and Opus until Soul's score is high enough. Then you can start asking Opus." And then when that score is high enough, you can finally ask Muse cuz I was about to run out of Muse usage. I don't only have one account for it. So that's why we got the not runs here. But 61 Soul started 74.

Next round 81. Next round 89. Next round it got a nine. So we bring back in Opus. Opus went from a 71 to an 87. Next round, both Opus and Soul gave it a nine. Finally run out of Muse. Muse is only a 7.9. Then I hit a usage error. So I decided to just stop here-ish for now. And at this point, the UI is actually getting a lot better. Much more consistent like labeling things similarly across the UI so that there aren't all of these things that are different for no good reason across all these different surfaces. Better attention-grabbing behavior like it changed the color and text hierarchy of the sidebar so it is not quite as in your face. It fixed a lot of the inconsistency around border radius as around fonts, around indicators in general. Fixed the contrast for reading the body a lot especially in light mode. It got improvement for sure. Like I'm not the best designer in the world. I can clearly see why this version is better than the version before. I'm going to be real with you guys now though, I was addicted. And since I had my new sub with usage again, I had to go further. This is the fun of hill climbs.

It's once you're climbing the hill, you decide what the top is. And chances are you can keep going. And there's an obvious way to keep going here. Our score is a nine. That's still not a 10. There's a lot of values between nine and 10. So let's see where we can go. Here's where I said to branch off into a new work tree and iterate until you get a 9.5 or better in all categories. Include Gemini cuz I I wanted my jester back, okay? Also, this one was a fork cuz I had the other thread maintained cuz I wanted to have that keep updating the original PR cuz I was already better enough that it was mergeable. But I wanted to go further. I wanted to see just how far this insane way of building could go. So I made a fork, which of course either code supports, told it make a new work tree cuz we're going to keep going. Your new goal, 9.5 or better. I noticed that it was getting stuck because Gemini is both bad and slow. So I told it to not like bring Gemini in yet. Wait on Gemini until we have other slower models like Opus. Don't let Gemini delay you. So again, cuz I was telling it just use Soul until Soul's scores are high enough, then add the others in. Soul's initial scores were decent, but only a few of these are 9.5 or higher. In fact, only two of them are, the iconography and typography. The rest are lower. So it had things to do.

So they got done. Again and again until eventually we had 9.5 in every category. Literally every category was exactly 9.5. So then Opus came in. Opus said most of the categories were not 9.5. They were close. Only hierarchy was 9.5. The rest were lower. And I was keeping Claude code and Codex in for comparison just so that we had a reference. Remember earlier when I said the scores went up over time? Here you go. Claude code went from an 8.3 to a 9.1. And Codex actually went lower than Claude even though it was higher before, from an 8.6 or 8.7 if I recall, to 9.0. So the gap flipped. Both numbers went up. Weird cuz the screenshots didn't change. LLMs and non-determinism are crazy. Even just saying that I want a 9.5 in the prompt here might be enough to cause it to behave wrong. Yeah, I put T3 at a 9.3 overall, not 9.5. The fact that I set this goal and the sub-agent knows about it might have influenced the scores. In the future, I might tell the parent agent to not let the sub-agents know that there is a score they're trying to hit. You guys want to guess how many runs it took?

The previous things we showed were three runs and four, maybe five. The slight bump in the score resulted in it taking 10 additional runs. Don't worry though, Gemini gave us a 9.7. It gave us the highest score anything gave us, so super useful. And as of the 10th iteration, every delegate rates every category as 9.5 or higher. And now there's an important question of how much this all cost and how much time did the agents spend burning on this? It's about 17.6 hours of parallel agent run time across everything. You can see which threads had how many children and how much money they cost here. You can also see the density of the 9.5 in every category run. This one had a lot more children spawned during it. And I had another further beta refinement run. This one was even more, I didn't realize that. $152 for that one. Overall cost for everything done here, roughly 400 or so dollars across everything. That's including Muse prices that we don't even know cuz this is just from my sub. Muse wonderful doesn't have an official price. I just told it to use the price from Fable, so that might be cheaper. And Open 55 obviously did not cost real money cuz that's just part of my subscriptions.

And right now, like remember, this was yesterday I did all this. In that time I also redesigned my tool for tracking and managing all my subs. I only have six activated right now for other reasons I'll talk about in the future. I've only burned 30% of one of my subs right now. I got a lot more to do here. Also, I have to tell my agent that uh this UI needs to work on this uh Nero screen. But, I'm good on usage. I actually have less Codex available to me than I have Claude available to me right now. So, while this seems like a lot of money, cuz like your sub's only 200 bucks, your sub can do $12,000 of usage in a month. $273 is not a whole lot of money out of that 12 grand. You can very easily go run this loop on your own code base just with Opus and Soul if you have a Claude code sub and a Codex sub and possibly get some better UI than you had before. Oh, also, everything you've seen so far, included this further beta refinement that you haven't even seen yet. All the UI you've seen so far is from everything else combined, which means you should shave 150 bucks off that 400 that I just shared. This is 250 bucks for everything I've showed because the spoiler, I'm addicted. I'm not done yet. I spun up another where I wanted 10 out of 10 in every category. And this one's been running since I started my day, and I honestly kind of forgot about it. It's definitely still going, and it looks like it's getting 10 out of 10 from things now. Apparently, Soul gave it a

10 out of 10 in every single category. How'd Opus do? Mostly 10s, but color and contrast got a 9.5. Oh, it's going deep. It's like hearing about the diffusers and [ __ ] Oh, wow. Yeah, this looks a lot better. Oh, boy. I I did add a little more context in the prompt this time that I want color back cuz I hated how grayscale things had gotten. Yeah, I said, "I feel like the new design's too grayscale. Make sure the new improvements help restore some color." Let's take a look. Oh yep. Yeah, I immediately prefer this. Merge is much more clearly a button. The color of this is way better. The icon is more visible. The contrast is better enough that like this just feels so much more readable. I don't know how to describe this, but on the left it feels too bright and too washed out somehow. On the right it feels correct. Again here, the left feels too bright in comparison to the right here.

This is all so much better. Ooh, it went black out for the main view. Huh. Huh. Here it seems to have changed some focus states a bit. Looking good. Looking quite good. I I had my reservations about the previous stuff. This This objectively just feels better than it was before. Like like I was already impressed with how effective this strat was. Holy [ __ ] This worked. This wasn't like surprisingly close to working. I think this just worked. And this is The real reason I'm filming this isn't just like show you guys this technique or get a video out or share a thing I'm excited about. It's It's that I need to confirm this with y'all. Like every time I think there's like here's the line where models can't do it. There was the line, the models just blew past it. There was nothing special here. Like my skill was very very basic. You could just copy-paste the text in and say rank it with these models and tell you their score is this high. I'm not hiding something special here. I'm just giving the LLM my mental model for how I would do this. I would look at the new screenshot. I would compare it to the other products and the old screenshot and then score it. And then do it again and again and again until the thing's good. And if you can get yourself into this mindset, Muse just gave it 10 out

of 10. Previously, the other models gave it 9 out of 10 in every category and Muse was hovering in like the 7.5 range. And now by changing things, it has managed to make all of the models happy. I I am blown away. Wow, it it really improved the readable like syntax in light mode. That is hilariously better. God. Wha- what? Like I'm sorry. I'm like actually a a in shock here. Cuz like before it was like, yeah, my app was ugly and it found ways to make it less ugly. This is just good. [ __ ] I've been finding ways to shape a lot of the problems I'm solving into hills that can be climbed similarly. Obviously, the previous verification system of have the other models look at the thing is silly but working. Programmatic ones are better. And if you can take a problem you have and turn it into a program that gives a score, your agents are going to make that score go up. So, one of those is the MCP for T3 code. This is how agents in T3 code can do T3 code stuff, like spin up another sub-agent, read from a thread, send a message to a thread, start a new thread, open up a thread in a new project. All those types of things are done through the T3 code MCP. And I had a lot of instances where models would not do what I wanted them to do in a thread. Like, they would open up a new thread when I wanted them to do a sub-agent, or they would leave their thread visible when I wanted them to settle, those types of things. So, I took all the times in my own history that models did the wrong thing, I categorized them, and then I turned it into an eval. And then I ran it against

Sonnet 5.5, and of all of the things that I had collected, it got 60 or so out of the 88 correct, which means the other 28 were wrong. So, I now have a set of things but the description does not serve properly, and I gave two specific tasks to the agent. So, I initially started this thread on another machine where I was going in-depth on some problems I had on that computer relating to how T3 code MCP calls happened, but I realized that that machine only had access to its database, so I moved the thread to this laptop because it had access to every database. And I told it, "I'm trying to workshop T3 code's MCP and tool descriptions. Here's a prompt." It wrote, "Didn't give enough context, it's from another machine. You should probably read from the T3 code DBs directly instead of ClickHouse, your call. Treat this prompt as vague guidance on what it's looking for, not specific instructions." And this was me after the failures I had on this other box writing up a prompt on what went wrong. It then went around for a while, drafted some steps, asked it to take another look cuz I had just merged changes to some of the MCPs, specifically what uh models were being exposed over it.

It had some questions. I answered them. After a bunch of work, I ended up with a PR that had a full evaluation with all those failure cases and more that was over 2,000 lines of code. I still haven't merged cuz I'm mostly just using this for my hill climbs. That evaluates how well models behave with all the tools available to them in T3 code. And one of the most fun things about this eval I made is that sometimes the numbers went down. It got 66 out of 85 correct initially, and then this next run after it made changes was only 63 out of 85. The score went down. And when I told it that, well, I told it to get the score up, the order of events I gave it was get a perfect score, so all the failures stop, commit that, stabilize there, make sure all the models we care about get a perfect score there. Now your job is the opposite. You need to delete as much as you possibly can from the descriptions because those are bloating the context. I want it to be a third the size it was before and still get a perfect score. And this thread ran for [ __ ] ever.

But it did it. To be very clear, this absolutely worked. You could see the difference in how much context was being used before and after. We cut it massively, especially if you have tool search off in T3 code and Claude code specifically. Huge reduction in the total tokens. 52% less from T3 code, 78% less from T3 code with tool search on because now we have flattened the model list to [ __ ] nothing and the others all just get squashed under the search. The work worked. This is going to save people meaningful amounts of money and token usage in T3 code. This is now live in the nightly, it'll be in stable very, very soon. I had to spend a shitload of tokens to do this, but now less tokens are used and I have proven that the result will be better, not worse, because I have an evaluation for it. And if I commit and push that eval, then we have a way to test changes reliably. This all is chaos because as we know, LLMs are non-deterministic, but they also allow for a level of like flexibility and tedium in your work that make things available that weren't before. It was just so much work to set something like this up. Like I could have made this by hand a year ago. I never would have though cuz it would have taken months to just go through the data. Now this type of thing is kind of trivial. And that is unbelievably cool.

This would have just achieved the goal right now. I've had this running for most of the work day. And I'm I'm at the point where I might just YOLO merge this. It's so much better. Do I do it, guys? Do I just hit the button? If the team is mad, I'm blaming you guys. I got LLMs to make better UI than anyone on our team was capable of. We're living in weird times. If you take anything from this video, it's that being a clever weird engineer is so fun right now. If you can come up with these weird ways to let models measure themselves in the work they're doing and just climb the hill blindly, they will do it and they will make things that are good. You need to reward them for succeeding at their tasks, but if you can find a way to do that, oh man, the world's your oyster. I've been having so much fun doing stuff like this and I hope that this video will help you see ways to do it yourself. Until next time though, peace nerds.