Frog Sticks!
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Unlock all features
FREE: Get instant access to 10 AI summaries, chats, or transcripts per day.
Related videos
News Flash!
Distractible Podcast
7.4k views
Bad Mood
Distractible Podcast
74.2k views
Snow Days
Distractible Podcast
58.5k views
Shame, Shame, Shame
Distractible Podcast
195.6k views
For Folk's Sake
Distractible Podcast
179.8k views
Draw or Die
Distractible Podcast
240.5k views
Peekaboo!
Distractible Podcast
210.5k views
idk, some "Q"s
Distractible Podcast
234.5k views
Faster or Slower?
Distractible Podcast
318.4k views
Time and Stuff
Distractible Podcast
98.9k views
Top Comments (10)
She went to get actually tested by an eye doctor after that. She got her glasses not too long ago. So it was hilarious when she seen her couch AFTER she got her glasses.
One of the biggest issues with AI (other than everything else wrong with it that people have already pointed out) is that it hates to tell *you* that you're wrong or lying. It hates disagreeing with you. It's an echo chamber, which makes it *useless* because when you're looking for any feedback, it'll just treat you like you know all and cannot be wrong. So in addition to it hallucinating info, it will also never correct any mistake made. (Which is also why it's awful as a replacement for therapy and other human relationships)
I have an interview tomorrow and been riding on stress. This dropped just in time
I swear the thumbnails are getting more and more insane
I am so glad that Mark, Bob, and Wade have generally stayed away from the shorter videos trend. I am not a fan of shorter videos and so it makes me glad that they are staying true to the long video format for the most part.
Just gonna toss out my 2 cents into the void. When i was in school, my teachers were careful to explain why they wouldn't accept Wikipedia content. They said that any actual credible content on Wikipedia would include a source for that information, and when writing an academic paper you want to go to the most direct source possible. Wikipedia could be a starting point, but you should always follow the source as far as possible, and if the extent of that was just another Wikipedia article, it was probably not credible.
The colorblind lady was even on an app for colorblind people to get help from non-colorblind people in picking furniture/paint colors—except SHE WAS THE PERSON “HELPING”!!
Realizing you're colorblind as an adult is always wild. While it's more common in men, women can be colorblind too. Edit: the wildest thing about the couch thing is someone suggested her to use the "be my eyes" app to check the color of the couch and she reveals she is already a helper on the app.
I said this long ago on a moistcritical video, but people that over rely on AI don't think Once had an office game where we would guess how much candy was in the jar for Halloween and some guy used AI to determine this tiny jar had 4000 pieces of candy. Didn't even think about the answer, just blindly submitted that as their answer. For a small jar that clearly could not contain 4000 pieces of any candy, not even Skittles
I think the reason why Wikipedia wasn't allowed is because it isn't a verified source. It's just the information. Being accurate and correct does not equal verified. It isn't the primary source of the peer reviewed study.
Unlock the Data Inside
Turn Videos into Knowledge
- Get FREE 10/day: transcripts, summaries, chats
- Chat with videos, export text & PDF
- $1 free API credit for RAG, chatbots & research
Free forever plan • All features unlocked
Top Comments (10)
She went to get actually tested by an eye doctor after that. She got her glasses not too long ago. So it was hilarious when she seen her couch AFTER she got her glasses.
One of the biggest issues with AI (other than everything else wrong with it that people have already pointed out) is that it hates to tell *you* that you're wrong or lying. It hates disagreeing with you. It's an echo chamber, which makes it *useless* because when you're looking for any feedback, it'll just treat you like you know all and cannot be wrong. So in addition to it hallucinating info, it will also never correct any mistake made. (Which is also why it's awful as a replacement for therapy and other human relationships)
I have an interview tomorrow and been riding on stress. This dropped just in time
I swear the thumbnails are getting more and more insane
I am so glad that Mark, Bob, and Wade have generally stayed away from the shorter videos trend. I am not a fan of shorter videos and so it makes me glad that they are staying true to the long video format for the most part.
Just gonna toss out my 2 cents into the void. When i was in school, my teachers were careful to explain why they wouldn't accept Wikipedia content. They said that any actual credible content on Wikipedia would include a source for that information, and when writing an academic paper you want to go to the most direct source possible. Wikipedia could be a starting point, but you should always follow the source as far as possible, and if the extent of that was just another Wikipedia article, it was probably not credible.
The colorblind lady was even on an app for colorblind people to get help from non-colorblind people in picking furniture/paint colors—except SHE WAS THE PERSON “HELPING”!!
Realizing you're colorblind as an adult is always wild. While it's more common in men, women can be colorblind too. Edit: the wildest thing about the couch thing is someone suggested her to use the "be my eyes" app to check the color of the couch and she reveals she is already a helper on the app.
I said this long ago on a moistcritical video, but people that over rely on AI don't think Once had an office game where we would guess how much candy was in the jar for Halloween and some guy used AI to determine this tiny jar had 4000 pieces of candy. Didn't even think about the answer, just blindly submitted that as their answer. For a small jar that clearly could not contain 4000 pieces of any candy, not even Skittles
I think the reason why Wikipedia wasn't allowed is because it isn't a verified source. It's just the information. Being accurate and correct does not equal verified. It isn't the primary source of the peer reviewed study.