Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

SNL FOUND A RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE WAY TO MAKE LANGUAGE HISTORY FUNNY. “INVENTING SPANISH” IMAGINES THE MOMENT SPANISH WAS CREATED. and apparently, the people responsible had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Bad Bunny plays one of the men trying to figure out how this new language should work.... the problem is that they're basically inventing words on the spot. a normal historical explanation would tell you how a language developed. SNL asks a much funnier question: “What if the people inventing it were just making things up?” that's where the sketch gets its rhythm. one person suggests something. another person questions it. then they settle on a word that somehow becomes part of the language. the premise is incredibly simple. but because everyone treats it like a serious historical meeting, the absurdity keeps getting funnier. and the audience doesn't need to know anything about linguistics to understand the joke.show more

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹

19,523 subscribers

104,073 views • 5 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Comments

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹5 days ago

WHAT MAKES “INVENTING SPANISH” WORK IS HOW SERIOUSLY EVERYONE TREATS A COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS IDEA. Nobody is trying to tell a joke. They're trying to solve a problem. What should this new language sound like? What should these words mean? And why does every suggestion somehow become more ridiculous? That's classic SNL construction. Take something enormous and familiar, then imagine the completely ordinary people who supposedly created it. The comedy comes from shrinking history down to a room full of people making decisions. And Bad Bunny is perfectly suited to it because he understands the cultural reference rather than simply playing a generic “Spanish-speaking” character. That's an important difference. The sketch isn't really making fun of Spanish. It's making fun of the idea that something as complicated as a language could have been invented through a meeting where everyone just kept throwing suggestions around. And audiences clearly connected with the premise. “Inventing Spanish” finished with 7.3 million YouTube views, making it one of Season 51's biggest sketches. The joke is simple. The execution makes it memorable.

Internet Traveler5 days ago

This was horrible.. and your AI comment only made it worse.

Franz E5 days ago

Not funny

Algarrobo Navas5 days ago

Hispanohablantes y estadounidenses masones dando a entender que la correcta pronunciación del español en España es un ceceo… Que vergüencita participar de eso como hispanohablante.

PopePiousXV5 days ago

This skit gave me severe autism

Scimmia5 days ago

Haven’t been funny since the 70’s

DVD5 days ago

Funny to do this with people who legitimately can barely speak proper Spanish

Just Sayin’ 🇺🇲 ✝️ ❤️5 days ago

🤣👏😂

Greg Gryg 🇨🇦🇵🇱🇺🇦🇬🇧 🇲🇾5 days ago

Intelligent Funny and so rare in today’s USA 🙈😎🤷🏼‍♂️😆

Andreas APX5 days ago

Most european languages have gendered nouns and formal plurals

nathan oliver5 days ago

It would be better if the whole thing is Spainish but gendered words is normal and predates Spanish

Related Videos

SNL FOUND ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE A PILLOW FUNNY. BY SELLING IT LIKE IT COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE. “SHOP TV: PILLOW” uses the familiar language of television shopping: enthusiastic salesmanship, big promises and the suggestion that one ordinary product can solve a problem you didn't even know you had. That's a very recognizable format. The product is simple. The presentation is anything but. And that's where the comedy starts. Television shopping depends on confidence. The presenter has to make an ordinary object feel like an extraordinary opportunity. SNL takes that confidence and turns it into the joke. Because once a sales pitch becomes too enthusiastic, the audience starts wondering whether the product is actually useful, or whether the performance is doing all the work.

SNL FOUND ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE A PILLOW FUNNY. BY SELLING IT LIKE IT COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE. “SHOP TV: PILLOW” uses the familiar language of television shopping: enthusiastic salesmanship, big promises and the suggestion that one ordinary product can solve a problem you didn't even know you had. That's a very recognizable format. The product is simple. The presentation is anything but. And that's where the comedy starts. Television shopping depends on confidence. The presenter has to make an ordinary object feel like an extraordinary opportunity. SNL takes that confidence and turns it into the joke. Because once a sales pitch becomes too enthusiastic, the audience starts wondering whether the product is actually useful, or whether the performance is doing all the work.

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹

46,687 views • 4 days ago

HARRY POTTER: HERMIONE GROWTH SPURT BECAME ONE OF SNL'S BIGGEST VIRAL SKETCHES. And the premise is almost ridiculously simple. Hermione Granger suddenly has a growth spurt. That's it. But when Lindsay Lohan hosted SNL in 2004, the show took that tiny idea and treated it like a major development in the Harry Potter universe. The characters don't simply notice that Hermione looks different. They become completely distracted by it. That's where the sketch finds its comedy. The Harry Potter world remains recognizable, but one completely absurd change has been introduced into it. And SNL refuses to move past it. The characters keep reacting. The situation keeps escalating. The original premise gets squeezed for every possible joke. That's an old comedy technique, but SNL understood something important here: Sometimes you don't need a complicated premise. You need one ridiculous idea and enough commitment to make the audience believe the characters would actually behave this way.

HARRY POTTER: HERMIONE GROWTH SPURT BECAME ONE OF SNL'S BIGGEST VIRAL SKETCHES. And the premise is almost ridiculously simple. Hermione Granger suddenly has a growth spurt. That's it. But when Lindsay Lohan hosted SNL in 2004, the show took that tiny idea and treated it like a major development in the Harry Potter universe. The characters don't simply notice that Hermione looks different. They become completely distracted by it. That's where the sketch finds its comedy. The Harry Potter world remains recognizable, but one completely absurd change has been introduced into it. And SNL refuses to move past it. The characters keep reacting. The situation keeps escalating. The original premise gets squeezed for every possible joke. That's an old comedy technique, but SNL understood something important here: Sometimes you don't need a complicated premise. You need one ridiculous idea and enough commitment to make the audience believe the characters would actually behave this way.

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹

145,848 views • 7 days ago

Jacob Rees Mogg, "We've bought in to the language of equality" "I hope our distinguished chairman is a chairman, not a chair. The chair is what I was sitting on" "Do you want my very brief lecture on the word 'man.' If you go back to the anglo saxons there were wereman and woeman, the man bit means people.. Where is the last remaining vestige of the word were? Werewolf. They're always male.. If they were woewolfs they would be female, but they never seem to come into fashion" "Man is the people is the people bit of it.. Were and Woe.. So if you want to be politically correct, bring back the were bit, and call us weremen.. Werechairman?" "Don't give in to the leftie use of language, it is absolutely fundamental"

Jacob Rees Mogg, "We've bought in to the language of equality" "I hope our distinguished chairman is a chairman, not a chair. The chair is what I was sitting on" "Do you want my very brief lecture on the word 'man.' If you go back to the anglo saxons there were wereman and woeman, the man bit means people.. Where is the last remaining vestige of the word were? Werewolf. They're always male.. If they were woewolfs they would be female, but they never seem to come into fashion" "Man is the people is the people bit of it.. Were and Woe.. So if you want to be politically correct, bring back the were bit, and call us weremen.. Werechairman?" "Don't give in to the leftie use of language, it is absolutely fundamental"

Farrukh

268,811 views • 2 years ago

What happens when Sanskrit students take the language beyond the classroom? A group of international Sanskrit learners went on an informal hike through the Elbsandsteingebirge in Germany. What began as a simple day outdoors soon turned into something unexpected: they started speaking Sanskrit. As they walked, they described what they saw, asked questions, joked, searched for words and helped each other along the way. There were mistakes too—and plenty of laughter. It wasn’t a lesson. It wasn’t an official Summer School activity. It was simply people trying to make a language part of everyday life. And perhaps that is what keeps a language alive—not just preserving its words, but continuing to speak them, share them and find new ways to use them. This Sanskrit Day, here’s to a language that has travelled across centuries and continues to bring people from different places together, one conversation at a time. ❤️ Credits : flowtingfairy on IG #Sanskrit #SpokenSanskrit #IndianLanguages #LanguageLearning #SanskritStudents [Sanskrit, Spoken Sanskrit, Sanskrit Summer School, Elbsandsteingebirge, language learning]

What happens when Sanskrit students take the language beyond the classroom? A group of international Sanskrit learners went on an informal hike through the Elbsandsteingebirge in Germany. What began as a simple day outdoors soon turned into something unexpected: they started speaking Sanskrit. As they walked, they described what they saw, asked questions, joked, searched for words and helped each other along the way. There were mistakes too—and plenty of laughter. It wasn’t a lesson. It wasn’t an official Summer School activity. It was simply people trying to make a language part of everyday life. And perhaps that is what keeps a language alive—not just preserving its words, but continuing to speak them, share them and find new ways to use them. This Sanskrit Day, here’s to a language that has travelled across centuries and continues to bring people from different places together, one conversation at a time. ❤️ Credits : flowtingfairy on IG #Sanskrit #SpokenSanskrit #IndianLanguages #LanguageLearning #SanskritStudents [Sanskrit, Spoken Sanskrit, Sanskrit Summer School, Elbsandsteingebirge, language learning]

The Better India

20,104 views • 1 month ago

People are remarkably good at pointing to what feels off, and remarkably bad at proposing a solution. Filmmaker David Gelb compares it to a patient going to the doctor's office and telling the doctor what they need: "A patient goes into the doctor's office and says, 'My back hurts. I think I need 25 Vicodins.' They will be able to tell you what the problem is, but they're not the ones who should be prescribing the solution. If you start making a bunch of changes trying to make other people happy, you've lost the thread, and then the movie will stop meaning anything. The questions that actually work aren't 'what would you change?' They're simpler: 'What did this mean to you?' 'Was there any part you didn't understand?' The solution has to come through the taste of the filmmaker." If you let audience suggestions override your taste, you end up in a people-pleasing loop where the work loses the very thing that made it yours.

People are remarkably good at pointing to what feels off, and remarkably bad at proposing a solution. Filmmaker David Gelb compares it to a patient going to the doctor's office and telling the doctor what they need: "A patient goes into the doctor's office and says, 'My back hurts. I think I need 25 Vicodins.' They will be able to tell you what the problem is, but they're not the ones who should be prescribing the solution. If you start making a bunch of changes trying to make other people happy, you've lost the thread, and then the movie will stop meaning anything. The questions that actually work aren't 'what would you change?' They're simpler: 'What did this mean to you?' 'Was there any part you didn't understand?' The solution has to come through the taste of the filmmaker." If you let audience suggestions override your taste, you end up in a people-pleasing loop where the work loses the very thing that made it yours.

David Perell Clips

12,258 views • 5 months ago

Geoffrey Hinton: AI isn’t just a tool. It understands and has emotions. “Most of the people who say it’s just a tool don’t have a kind of model of how people work.” “These large language models seem as if they understand what you’re saying.” “They came from a tiny language model in 1985 that was designed as a theory of how people understand the meanings of words.” “They can answer quite tricky questions, which suggests they really do understand.” “They’re understanding things in the same way we understand them.”

Geoffrey Hinton: AI isn’t just a tool. It understands and has emotions. “Most of the people who say it’s just a tool don’t have a kind of model of how people work.” “These large language models seem as if they understand what you’re saying.” “They came from a tiny language model in 1985 that was designed as a theory of how people understand the meanings of words.” “They can answer quite tricky questions, which suggests they really do understand.” “They’re understanding things in the same way we understand them.”

Veee

86,737 views • 23 days ago

MELISSA MCCARTHY'S UPS DRIVER IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT SNL DOES BEST. The premise is incredibly simple. A UPS driver has one job: Deliver the package. Melissa McCarthy's character somehow makes even that difficult. The package gets dropped. The instructions get misunderstood. Every attempt to fix the situation creates another problem. And McCarthy never plays the character like she's trying to be funny. She plays her like a completely confident professional who happens to be terrible at her job. That's the secret. The character isn't aware of how ridiculous she is. Everyone around her is. And SNL lets that contrast keep getting worse.

MELISSA MCCARTHY'S UPS DRIVER IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT SNL DOES BEST. The premise is incredibly simple. A UPS driver has one job: Deliver the package. Melissa McCarthy's character somehow makes even that difficult. The package gets dropped. The instructions get misunderstood. Every attempt to fix the situation creates another problem. And McCarthy never plays the character like she's trying to be funny. She plays her like a completely confident professional who happens to be terrible at her job. That's the secret. The character isn't aware of how ridiculous she is. Everyone around her is. And SNL lets that contrast keep getting worse.

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹

35,691 views • 5 days ago

This is what happens when you force a language on someone. People make it a mission to not learn or speak that language. The imposition factor goes out of the window and hatred factor crawl in.

This is what happens when you force a language on someone. People make it a mission to not learn or speak that language. The imposition factor goes out of the window and hatred factor crawl in.

Piyush Rai

133,625 views • 1 year ago

SNL TURNED A WEDDING SPEECH INTO A RELATIONSHIP DISASTER. And somehow, everyone kept singing. The “Domingo” sketches became a major SNL phenomenon, but the bridesmaid speech took the joke into an especially awkward setting. A wedding is supposed to be about celebrating the couple. The speeches are meant to be heartfelt. The guests are expected to smile, applaud and pretend everything is perfect. Then Domingo enters the conversation. Suddenly, a celebration becomes a very public reminder that the people onstage may not be telling the whole story. That's what makes the premise work. The audience knows there's something wrong. The characters keep trying to turn it into entertainment. And the more cheerful the performance becomes, the more uncomfortable the situation feels. SNL found comedy in the gap between what a wedding is supposed to look like and what everyone may actually know.

SNL TURNED A WEDDING SPEECH INTO A RELATIONSHIP DISASTER. And somehow, everyone kept singing. The “Domingo” sketches became a major SNL phenomenon, but the bridesmaid speech took the joke into an especially awkward setting. A wedding is supposed to be about celebrating the couple. The speeches are meant to be heartfelt. The guests are expected to smile, applaud and pretend everything is perfect. Then Domingo enters the conversation. Suddenly, a celebration becomes a very public reminder that the people onstage may not be telling the whole story. That's what makes the premise work. The audience knows there's something wrong. The characters keep trying to turn it into entertainment. And the more cheerful the performance becomes, the more uncomfortable the situation feels. SNL found comedy in the gap between what a wedding is supposed to look like and what everyone may actually know.

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹

17,212 views • 5 days ago

Adolescence was a drama. But in Westminster it was treated like a documentary. Guides on the secret language of emojis used by incels from the programme were handed out to schools, creating a moral panic. How can you fix a problem if you don’t understand what the problem is?

Adolescence was a drama. But in Westminster it was treated like a documentary. Guides on the secret language of emojis used by incels from the programme were handed out to schools, creating a moral panic. How can you fix a problem if you don’t understand what the problem is?

Johnny McDevitt

79,256 views • 7 months ago

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

Big Brain AI

69,717 views • 4 months ago

James Currier on how he grew a photo sharing site to 47 million users in 6 months “Most product people start by saying, ‘There’s a problem and we’re going to build a product that’s going to solve that problem. Then we’re going to market it,” NFX founder James Currier observes. Of the 45 companies James has spoken to in the last 18 months, at least 40 of them have said some version of this. “I was also taught this back in the 1990s,” James says. “But through experimentation, I’ve realized that this is actually the wrong way to look at it. The right way to look at it — if you want to grow your business — is to ask, ‘What is the language? How am I going to market this?’ . . . Figure out what the language is and then build the product to fit what the language is.” James gives the example of a photo sharing site he launched years ago: “It said ‘Store your Photos’ on the homepage, and we were not growing. So one day, we literally just changed the homepage to say ‘Share your Photos.’ The team that was working on it said, ‘Our site doesn’t actually share photos. It just stores the photos.’ I said, ‘Well, fix that.’ What ended up happening was they started building features that allowed people to share their photos, and we registered 47 million people in 6 months. And that was back when the Internet was 250 million people.” He continues: “What we realized was that by changing the language, you change how the users are interacting with your site. And you also change your thinking about the product so that the features and subsequent language in the product actually fits with the main value proposition.” James gives another example: “We had a matchmaking site, and the promise there was ‘Find a date.’ It wasn’t growing and we had to buy all this traffic from Google and elsewhere to keep the whole thing going. So what we did was we changed the language and the value proposition to say, ‘Help people find a date.’ When we did that, we registered 28 million people in about 9 months, virally with no cost to us. We changed the language, and then we changed the product subsequently.” Video source: Greylock Partners (2016)

James Currier on how he grew a photo sharing site to 47 million users in 6 months “Most product people start by saying, ‘There’s a problem and we’re going to build a product that’s going to solve that problem. Then we’re going to market it,” NFX founder James Currier observes. Of the 45 companies James has spoken to in the last 18 months, at least 40 of them have said some version of this. “I was also taught this back in the 1990s,” James says. “But through experimentation, I’ve realized that this is actually the wrong way to look at it. The right way to look at it — if you want to grow your business — is to ask, ‘What is the language? How am I going to market this?’ . . . Figure out what the language is and then build the product to fit what the language is.” James gives the example of a photo sharing site he launched years ago: “It said ‘Store your Photos’ on the homepage, and we were not growing. So one day, we literally just changed the homepage to say ‘Share your Photos.’ The team that was working on it said, ‘Our site doesn’t actually share photos. It just stores the photos.’ I said, ‘Well, fix that.’ What ended up happening was they started building features that allowed people to share their photos, and we registered 47 million people in 6 months. And that was back when the Internet was 250 million people.” He continues: “What we realized was that by changing the language, you change how the users are interacting with your site. And you also change your thinking about the product so that the features and subsequent language in the product actually fits with the main value proposition.” James gives another example: “We had a matchmaking site, and the promise there was ‘Find a date.’ It wasn’t growing and we had to buy all this traffic from Google and elsewhere to keep the whole thing going. So what we did was we changed the language and the value proposition to say, ‘Help people find a date.’ When we did that, we registered 28 million people in about 9 months, virally with no cost to us. We changed the language, and then we changed the product subsequently.” Video source: Greylock Partners (2016)

Startup Archive

18,388 views • 10 months ago

Sometimes a simple conversation can say more than a whole argument. The body language, the awkward pauses, and the way they look at each other make this scene feel like there’s a lot being left unsaid. It’s the kind of moment that keeps you watching because you know something is about to change. 👀

Sometimes a simple conversation can say more than a whole argument. The body language, the awkward pauses, and the way they look at each other make this scene feel like there’s a lot being left unsaid. It’s the kind of moment that keeps you watching because you know something is about to change. 👀

Ijoba

247,739 views • 7 days ago

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

Eric Schmidt on what he calls "the San Francisco consensus": "There's a group of people that I work with. They're all in San Francisco and they've all basically convinced themselves that in the next two to four year, the average is three years the entire world will change." He's careful to flag the catch in that word "consensus": "It's true that it's a consensus, but it's not necessarily true that the consensus is true." So why do these people believe it? Eric walks through the reasoning. First came language-to-language models. "ChatGPT is the best one, they did a great job," he says, with everyone else catching up. Then came two additions: reasoning, and memory inside these systems. Put those together and you get what he calls the agentic revolution: "The agentic revolution… can be understood as language in, memory and language, language out." To make it concrete, he uses a deliberately mundane example. Say he wants to build a house in California. One agent finds the lot. Another works out the rules. Another designs the building. Another selects the contractor. And, at least in America, another agent sues the contractor when the house doesn't work. The point of such a "stupid example," as he puts it, is exactly that it's ordinary: "I just gave you a workflow example that's true of every business, every government and every group human activity." That's why he thinks the consensus carries weight: "When you understand that the agentic revolution and the reasoning revolution together really changed the way we operate as humans, then you understand why the San Francisco consensus is so powerful." On the reasoning side, he points to models that work a problem forward and backward: "It will blow your mind away, especially when you ask it a question that you have no idea what the question is about and you watch it reason." And he cites the numbers he's seeing: "Google now has a math model that is at the 90 percentile of math graduate students." More broadly, he claims, "we now have systems now that are 90% of all of the graduate school skills. You know, math, physics, and so forth." When something can do that, he argues, "it will happen at a big scale." This is where the consensus reaches its sharpest point: recursive self-improvement. "There's a moment when what is called recursive self-improvement, the system begins to learn on itself, where it goes forward at a rate that is impossible for us to understand. It becomes combinatorial in a way that we as humans do not understand." His verdict on all of it is two-sided: "This is both incredibly exciting and also very worrisome."

High Signal AI

31,286 views • 4 months ago

SNL TOOK A SHOW ABOUT SUPERNATURAL HORROR AND FOUND ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE IT RIDICULOUS. “STRANGER THINGS PROMO” made Season 51's top 20 most-viewed SNL YouTube sketches, with 5.1 million views reported in May 2026. That is worth noticing. When a show becomes a cultural phenomenon, parody has an advantage: the audience already understands the world, the characters and the atmosphere. SNL doesn't have to spend five minutes explaining the reference. It can get straight to the joke. And that's what makes familiar franchises such powerful material for sketch comedy. The audience arrives with expectations. The writers only need to break one of them in an unexpected way.

SNL TOOK A SHOW ABOUT SUPERNATURAL HORROR AND FOUND ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE IT RIDICULOUS. “STRANGER THINGS PROMO” made Season 51's top 20 most-viewed SNL YouTube sketches, with 5.1 million views reported in May 2026. That is worth noticing. When a show becomes a cultural phenomenon, parody has an advantage: the audience already understands the world, the characters and the atmosphere. SNL doesn't have to spend five minutes explaining the reference. It can get straight to the joke. And that's what makes familiar franchises such powerful material for sketch comedy. The audience arrives with expectations. The writers only need to break one of them in an unexpected way.

𝓥𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓣𝓪𝓹

42,165 views • 5 days ago

🚨Candace Owens OPEN LETTER to the Deep State: How FAR Are You Willing to Take This? 👀 Everyone knows Tyler Robinson didn’t do it. At this point, trying to sell that story feels insulting. We all saw what happened that day, and no amount of scripted interviews or carefully placed narratives is going to change what people already know in their gut. Candace made a point that stuck with me. She said they might have controlled the actors, the stage, and even some of the people in Charlie’s life up until that moment. But the one thing they couldn’t control was the audience. And the audience isn’t buying it. The show flopped. People aren’t falling for the cover-up, and instead of backing off, it feels like they’re doubling down. What’s wild is how this has actually backfired on them. Charlie’s death didn’t divide people the way they probably hoped it would. If anything, it pulled a lot of us together in recognizing who the real enemy is. Candace mentioned that Charlie had dreams about dying young and that it would somehow save the world. Maybe this is what he meant. Maybe his death was always going to expose something much bigger than any of us realized. The question now is simple: how far are they going to take this? Because from where I’m standing, the more they try to bury the truth, the more obvious it becomes. CC: Candace Owens

🚨Candace Owens OPEN LETTER to the Deep State: How FAR Are You Willing to Take This? 👀 Everyone knows Tyler Robinson didn’t do it. At this point, trying to sell that story feels insulting. We all saw what happened that day, and no amount of scripted interviews or carefully placed narratives is going to change what people already know in their gut. Candace made a point that stuck with me. She said they might have controlled the actors, the stage, and even some of the people in Charlie’s life up until that moment. But the one thing they couldn’t control was the audience. And the audience isn’t buying it. The show flopped. People aren’t falling for the cover-up, and instead of backing off, it feels like they’re doubling down. What’s wild is how this has actually backfired on them. Charlie’s death didn’t divide people the way they probably hoped it would. If anything, it pulled a lot of us together in recognizing who the real enemy is. Candace mentioned that Charlie had dreams about dying young and that it would somehow save the world. Maybe this is what he meant. Maybe his death was always going to expose something much bigger than any of us realized. The question now is simple: how far are they going to take this? Because from where I’m standing, the more they try to bury the truth, the more obvious it becomes. CC: Candace Owens

Cartman Reacts

38,143 views • 3 months ago

This person is “kindly begging” cisgender heterosexuals to stop using normal language. They made a doctor’s appointment for their “spouse” named Kate. Used “they.” The receptionist heard the name Kate and said “she.” Cue the outrage. “I clearly modeled the language… it makes it really awkward if you disregard the language that queer and trans people are using.” A traditionally female name. Common sense. Instant “she.” And somehow you’re the problem for not playing along. This is the ideology in a nutshell: demand the entire world rewrite reality in real time or you’re the awkward one. It’s not that hard… to just say no.

This person is “kindly begging” cisgender heterosexuals to stop using normal language. They made a doctor’s appointment for their “spouse” named Kate. Used “they.” The receptionist heard the name Kate and said “she.” Cue the outrage. “I clearly modeled the language… it makes it really awkward if you disregard the language that queer and trans people are using.” A traditionally female name. Common sense. Instant “she.” And somehow you’re the problem for not playing along. This is the ideology in a nutshell: demand the entire world rewrite reality in real time or you’re the awkward one. It’s not that hard… to just say no.

DocumentingLibs

251,003 views • 2 months ago

The president speaking at his golf course to the leaders of Latin American nations at the “Shield of Americas.” This guy is clinically demented. Try to read it. “I'd love to get to your countries at some point. Marco loves going to your countries. He's always at one of these countries. He likes your countries the best, OK? You know, where are you? I mean, Chile, how good, how is Chile doing? Good. He likes it. He feels very calm. We all like him, right? It helps. He's got a language-- he's got a language advantage over me. Because I'm not learning your damn language. I don't have time. I was OK with languages. But I'm not going to spend time learning your language. That much I want to. Just give me a good interpreter. Interpreter? Very important. And I know if somebody's good. I may not speak the language. But I know I had an interpreter recently that wasn't good, talking to a very strong person from a different part of the world. And I could tell, even though I-- even though I don't speak the language, I could tell the interpreter was not good. When you go, uh, uh, uh, when I give a long flowing, beautiful sentence, and in this case, it was a woman. And she gave it in about one fourth at the time. I said, well, their language may be efficient. But it's not that efficient. And I could also tell one half great interpreters. Interpreter is very important. You have a bad interpreter. You think you're doing well? What did I do a good job talking to? This one of that was I great when I spoke to Putin today. Was I great when I spoke to President? And she was I great. But if the interpreter is speaking right or is weak or is ineffective or not good or not interpreting your words correctly, um, in one case we had an interpreter who once you disagreed with what we were saying, you actually changed it. We considered her a foreign minister, right? But what no, the interpreter is-- I talk about it all the time. Interpreters are really important. When you don't speak the language, they don't speak the language. It's you people have no idea. People have no idea how valuable. And I'm on them all the time. People have no idea how valuable a good interpreter is.”

The president speaking at his golf course to the leaders of Latin American nations at the “Shield of Americas.” This guy is clinically demented. Try to read it. “I'd love to get to your countries at some point. Marco loves going to your countries. He's always at one of these countries. He likes your countries the best, OK? You know, where are you? I mean, Chile, how good, how is Chile doing? Good. He likes it. He feels very calm. We all like him, right? It helps. He's got a language-- he's got a language advantage over me. Because I'm not learning your damn language. I don't have time. I was OK with languages. But I'm not going to spend time learning your language. That much I want to. Just give me a good interpreter. Interpreter? Very important. And I know if somebody's good. I may not speak the language. But I know I had an interpreter recently that wasn't good, talking to a very strong person from a different part of the world. And I could tell, even though I-- even though I don't speak the language, I could tell the interpreter was not good. When you go, uh, uh, uh, when I give a long flowing, beautiful sentence, and in this case, it was a woman. And she gave it in about one fourth at the time. I said, well, their language may be efficient. But it's not that efficient. And I could also tell one half great interpreters. Interpreter is very important. You have a bad interpreter. You think you're doing well? What did I do a good job talking to? This one of that was I great when I spoke to Putin today. Was I great when I spoke to President? And she was I great. But if the interpreter is speaking right or is weak or is ineffective or not good or not interpreting your words correctly, um, in one case we had an interpreter who once you disagreed with what we were saying, you actually changed it. We considered her a foreign minister, right? But what no, the interpreter is-- I talk about it all the time. Interpreters are really important. When you don't speak the language, they don't speak the language. It's you people have no idea. People have no idea how valuable. And I'm on them all the time. People have no idea how valuable a good interpreter is.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

992,387 views • 7 months ago

Some people thought it was a good thing that the Grammys created new categories, but this isn't something to celebrate—it's something to be concerned about. This is xenophobia disguised as new categories. They also added another Latin category after Bad Bunny won Album of the Year and was nominated for Song of the Year and Record of the Year. Because music is music, and it shouldn't continue to be separated into categories based on language.

Some people thought it was a good thing that the Grammys created new categories, but this isn't something to celebrate—it's something to be concerned about. This is xenophobia disguised as new categories. They also added another Latin category after Bad Bunny won Album of the Year and was nominated for Song of the Year and Record of the Year. Because music is music, and it shouldn't continue to be separated into categories based on language.

BAD BUNNY DAILY UPDATES

153,467 views • 2 months ago