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.

you added a second model to check the first one it never opened the repository what you handed it was the summary, so what it reviewed was a paragraph, and the paragraph was written by something fluent, which is why it reads as plausible two models agreeing about a... show more

Lagosaur

3,005 subscribers

28,822 views • 7 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

#WATCH | On UGC Regulations 2026, Dr Vikas Divyakirti, founder and MD of Drishti IAS, says, "...No one is even talking about what happened to one or two children from the Northeast in Delhi. While the preamble of the Equity Committee even mentions the word 'race,' and also mentions 'place of birth, ' someone's place of birth is Nagaland, or let's say Mizoram, every person in Delhi is using strange language towards them, and that's not even addressed in the Equity Committee. In the Equity Committee, there is no representation for the people of different races, and no one is addressing it...The Equity Committee lacks representation of linguistic diversity. There is no representation at all. Why is it only about the OBC versus the General Category, and not about other categories?... You initially took six bases: religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, and disability...When discrimination is mentioned, a whole paragraph is written, and in the discrimination paragraph, it clearly states religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, and any of them – there are six. Why did you need to write a separate paragraph on caste-based discrimination? When discrimination was already mentioned, why write a separate paragraph on caste-based discrimination? And if you did, why didn't you write a paragraph on religion, on race, on gender? All the categories. You should have written about all of them. Why are you segregating only one basis as a special basis in the definitions? I think those who drafted these rules haven't read them very carefully...The Supreme Court date was approaching, so they passed it in a hurry..." Watch full interview at -

#WATCH | On UGC Regulations 2026, Dr Vikas Divyakirti, founder and MD of Drishti IAS, says, "...No one is even talking about what happened to one or two children from the Northeast in Delhi. While the preamble of the Equity Committee even mentions the word 'race,' and also mentions 'place of birth, ' someone's place of birth is Nagaland, or let's say Mizoram, every person in Delhi is using strange language towards them, and that's not even addressed in the Equity Committee. In the Equity Committee, there is no representation for the people of different races, and no one is addressing it...The Equity Committee lacks representation of linguistic diversity. There is no representation at all. Why is it only about the OBC versus the General Category, and not about other categories?... You initially took six bases: religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, and disability...When discrimination is mentioned, a whole paragraph is written, and in the discrimination paragraph, it clearly states religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, disability, and any of them – there are six. Why did you need to write a separate paragraph on caste-based discrimination? When discrimination was already mentioned, why write a separate paragraph on caste-based discrimination? And if you did, why didn't you write a paragraph on religion, on race, on gender? All the categories. You should have written about all of them. Why are you segregating only one basis as a special basis in the definitions? I think those who drafted these rules haven't read them very carefully...The Supreme Court date was approaching, so they passed it in a hurry..." Watch full interview at -

ANI

18,784 views • 7 months ago

you numbered the steps so it could not get lost it does not get lost that list was written for a model that wandered, and this one plans better than the list does, so every number you added is a place where it is no longer allowed, to be smarter than you state the goal, the constraints, and how you will know it worked keep the numbers only where exactly one sequence is safe, which is deletes, auth and compliance the procedure felt like rigour it is a cage built to the dimensions of a model that is not in the room

you numbered the steps so it could not get lost it does not get lost that list was written for a model that wandered, and this one plans better than the list does, so every number you added is a place where it is no longer allowed, to be smarter than you state the goal, the constraints, and how you will know it worked keep the numbers only where exactly one sequence is safe, which is deletes, auth and compliance the procedure felt like rigour it is a cage built to the dimensions of a model that is not in the room

Lagosaur

14,857 views • 8 days ago

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 Iran never violated the MOU. The U.S. broke paragraph one by attacking. Fmr. CIA intel analyst Larry Johnson dismantles the claim that Tehran tore up the agreement: "They didn't violate a thing. They didn't violate a single piece of it. It was the United States that violated paragraph one by launching the unprovoked attacks on Iran." His reading of paragraph five is just as blunt. It never promised free passage without tolls, and it never barred Iran from enforcing its own protocols. It made Iran responsible for safe passage, which Iran answered with a published plan. Then Larry runs the checklist Washington skipped: assets never unfrozen, sanctions never lifted. On broken agreements, he calls the US the KING of them. SonofNewAmericanRevolution

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 Iran never violated the MOU. The U.S. broke paragraph one by attacking. Fmr. CIA intel analyst Larry Johnson dismantles the claim that Tehran tore up the agreement: "They didn't violate a thing. They didn't violate a single piece of it. It was the United States that violated paragraph one by launching the unprovoked attacks on Iran." His reading of paragraph five is just as blunt. It never promised free passage without tolls, and it never barred Iran from enforcing its own protocols. It made Iran responsible for safe passage, which Iran answered with a published plan. Then Larry runs the checklist Washington skipped: assets never unfrozen, sanctions never lifted. On broken agreements, he calls the US the KING of them. SonofNewAmericanRevolution

Mario Nawfal

120,889 views • 1 month ago

One AI skill that changes how you read academic papers. It turns every reference into a reusable writing block. I call this method: Atomic sentences. Atomic sentence = One sentence. One claim. One source. You can extract them directly from a peer-reviewed paper, vetted by authors and reviewers before it ever reaches you. It is a form of summarising the content, but the output can be reused and recombined in your writing. Here's how it works 👇 1. Upload any paper to Claude and trigger the /ea-atomic-sentences skill. It breaks down every cited reference into a single compressed claim. (Repeat on as many papers as needed) 2. Pick 5–6 sentences relevant to an argument and arrange them coherently, so it makes sense. Add your own ideas/findings as well. 3. Ask Claude to combine them into a coherent paragraph. What you get is surprisingly well-written paragraphs. Use the skill /ea-academic-writer for even better results. ✅ Every reference in that paragraph is real. ✅ Every claim was made by a human researcher. ✅ You control the narrative of what is being said in your paper, but build on the findings of others. Disclaimer: Don't skip reading, as you need to understand your domain to use this and don't rely 100% on AI, as it can make mistakes.

One AI skill that changes how you read academic papers. It turns every reference into a reusable writing block. I call this method: Atomic sentences. Atomic sentence = One sentence. One claim. One source. You can extract them directly from a peer-reviewed paper, vetted by authors and reviewers before it ever reaches you. It is a form of summarising the content, but the output can be reused and recombined in your writing. Here's how it works 👇 1. Upload any paper to Claude and trigger the /ea-atomic-sentences skill. It breaks down every cited reference into a single compressed claim. (Repeat on as many papers as needed) 2. Pick 5–6 sentences relevant to an argument and arrange them coherently, so it makes sense. Add your own ideas/findings as well. 3. Ask Claude to combine them into a coherent paragraph. What you get is surprisingly well-written paragraphs. Use the skill /ea-academic-writer for even better results. ✅ Every reference in that paragraph is real. ✅ Every claim was made by a human researcher. ✅ You control the narrative of what is being said in your paper, but build on the findings of others. Disclaimer: Don't skip reading, as you need to understand your domain to use this and don't rely 100% on AI, as it can make mistakes.

Ilya Shabanov

16,186 views • 4 months ago

They taught you electricity was just wires and connections. Nothing more. But there was a hidden power... One they never told you about. Tesla understood it. He exposed it. And that's why they silenced him. Electricity was never just energy. It was control. It was consciousness. Something never meant for the masses. What the awakened know isn't in textbooks. It's not tauaht in schools And you'll never see it on the news. The truth is there. But first, you have to learn how to see it. Nothing is what it seems. Do you dare to question what you have been taught? In "The Truth of the World,"

They taught you electricity was just wires and connections. Nothing more. But there was a hidden power... One they never told you about. Tesla understood it. He exposed it. And that's why they silenced him. Electricity was never just energy. It was control. It was consciousness. Something never meant for the masses. What the awakened know isn't in textbooks. It's not tauaht in schools And you'll never see it on the news. The truth is there. But first, you have to learn how to see it. Nothing is what it seems. Do you dare to question what you have been taught? In "The Truth of the World,"

Kyle L

148,198 views • 6 months ago

So here's my attempt at a one shot in Opus 5 after skepticism. I asked it to make me a game inspired by Elder Scrolls Daggerfall and to create all the assets. This is what it created in Cowork which took roughly 8 hours as it was making sure every single pixel was perfect. There's some hitching but on the whole I'm surprised that this is just from one paragraph of prompting engineered to produce the best results it could. It even built the indoor church lighting and water reflections.

So here's my attempt at a one shot in Opus 5 after skepticism. I asked it to make me a game inspired by Elder Scrolls Daggerfall and to create all the assets. This is what it created in Cowork which took roughly 8 hours as it was making sure every single pixel was perfect. There's some hitching but on the whole I'm surprised that this is just from one paragraph of prompting engineered to produce the best results it could. It even built the indoor church lighting and water reflections.

𝔊𝔯𝔦𝔪𝔣𝔢𝔩

33,655 views • 1 month ago

you added a line telling it never to claim work it did not do the claims got better worded nothing else moved, because you were not correcting a habit, you were asking it to check a record it does not have open in front of it the summary comes out the way yours, would at the end of a long day, from memory, confidently, in the shape the day was supposed to have honesty was never the missing piece nobody in that loop was reading the transcript, including the one writing about it

you added a line telling it never to claim work it did not do the claims got better worded nothing else moved, because you were not correcting a habit, you were asking it to check a record it does not have open in front of it the summary comes out the way yours, would at the end of a long day, from memory, confidently, in the shape the day was supposed to have honesty was never the missing piece nobody in that loop was reading the transcript, including the one writing about it

Lagosaur

14,178 views • 4 days ago

This video is great at explaining the context of Valko’s trailer and how it was vastly misinterpreted and twisted by the media to show he was “breaking and entering,” which is completely far from the truth. First of all, it is a bond trailer where MC and Valko know each other already in the story, so their interaction is one of consent. Second, if you continue to watch, Valko is hurt and came to MC for help. Please give this video a watch to understand what truly happened. Really sad that people maliciously took such a funny and cute trailer and made it into something it was not.

This video is great at explaining the context of Valko’s trailer and how it was vastly misinterpreted and twisted by the media to show he was “breaking and entering,” which is completely far from the truth. First of all, it is a bond trailer where MC and Valko know each other already in the story, so their interaction is one of consent. Second, if you continue to watch, Valko is hurt and came to MC for help. Please give this video a watch to understand what truly happened. Really sad that people maliciously took such a funny and cute trailer and made it into something it was not.

☆オードリーAudrey☆

27,326 views • 1 month ago

your eval measured one system. production ran another. they start from the same idea and end somewhere else, which is why the number was right and the outcome was not. the code is the same until someone rewrites it for prod, because the eval lived in a notebook and prod is a service. then the data diverges. clean fixtures in the test, late and incomplete data in the run. then execution diverges. the eval assumed every call lands. production has retries, timeouts and rate limits. by the end the two runs share a name and nothing else. > why nobody catches it both sides are internally correct. the eval measured what it ran. production ran what it was given. neither one is wrong, and neither one is responsible for checking they were the same artifact. so the gap widens quietly. someone patches prod without touching the eval. someone adds a fixture without touching prod. no test anywhere fails. > what to actually do ship one artifact. the code that was measured is the code that runs. model the friction. whatever the real environment charges you, charge it in the eval too. easiest way to see the gap on your own idea, without writing the harness: (only first 100 registrated) it runs the tested code live, unchanged. that is the whole point. and treat the eval as a prior, not a result. it tells you what to expect. only the live run tells you what happened. your eval was accurate. it was accurate about something you never shipped.

your eval measured one system. production ran another. they start from the same idea and end somewhere else, which is why the number was right and the outcome was not. the code is the same until someone rewrites it for prod, because the eval lived in a notebook and prod is a service. then the data diverges. clean fixtures in the test, late and incomplete data in the run. then execution diverges. the eval assumed every call lands. production has retries, timeouts and rate limits. by the end the two runs share a name and nothing else. > why nobody catches it both sides are internally correct. the eval measured what it ran. production ran what it was given. neither one is wrong, and neither one is responsible for checking they were the same artifact. so the gap widens quietly. someone patches prod without touching the eval. someone adds a fixture without touching prod. no test anywhere fails. > what to actually do ship one artifact. the code that was measured is the code that runs. model the friction. whatever the real environment charges you, charge it in the eval too. easiest way to see the gap on your own idea, without writing the harness: (only first 100 registrated) it runs the tested code live, unchanged. that is the whole point. and treat the eval as a prior, not a result. it tells you what to expect. only the live run tells you what happened. your eval was accurate. it was accurate about something you never shipped.

Hanako

45,239 views • 20 days ago

This is absolutely one of my favorite sketches and you can tell it was written by a Black person. The church fan with MLK on it is so accurate! Whoever added that detail is a genius

This is absolutely one of my favorite sketches and you can tell it was written by a Black person. The church fan with MLK on it is so accurate! Whoever added that detail is a genius

Mimshack🦋

458,908 views • 8 months ago

you told it to double check its work that is the line making it worse current models verify without being asked, so your instruction lands on top of behaviour that already happened, and what you get is the same task run twice, billed twice, reported at twice the length it reads like diligence it is a model doing a lap it had already finished every prompting guide ever written tells you to add that line on this generation you improve the output by deleting it

you told it to double check its work that is the line making it worse current models verify without being asked, so your instruction lands on top of behaviour that already happened, and what you get is the same task run twice, billed twice, reported at twice the length it reads like diligence it is a model doing a lap it had already finished every prompting guide ever written tells you to add that line on this generation you improve the output by deleting it

Lagosaur

14,673 views • 9 days ago

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

2,724,446 views • 1 month ago

A NASA fellow claims the modern world runs on one equation. Your phone signal, wifi, satellites, this post reaching your screen. All of it obeys one line of math written in the 1860s, before the light bulb existed. His words. The man is Ali Alqaraghuli, a former NASA postdoctoral fellow who now runs two hardware companies. And the way he teaches it is what makes the video worth it. He does not derive the equation. He teaches you to read it. His claim is that school taught you to read math wrong, and one symbol proves it: what you were told is a plus sign is actually something else. Once you see it, the whole equation turns from notation into a sentence. Then he uses that sentence to walk you through how a signal actually gets from your phone to a satellite and back. One viewer called that section straight up magic. It is 4 minutes of it. The comments are the proof. A physics student wrote it explained what a semester with his professor could not. An electrical engineer admitted this is where the equations finally clicked. One person wrote: I cried and I do not even know why. His larger point: the wireless world is not magic and never was. It is one readable line, and reading it is a skill nobody bothered to teach you. One equation. Everything wireless. 14 minutes. It is in the video.

A NASA fellow claims the modern world runs on one equation. Your phone signal, wifi, satellites, this post reaching your screen. All of it obeys one line of math written in the 1860s, before the light bulb existed. His words. The man is Ali Alqaraghuli, a former NASA postdoctoral fellow who now runs two hardware companies. And the way he teaches it is what makes the video worth it. He does not derive the equation. He teaches you to read it. His claim is that school taught you to read math wrong, and one symbol proves it: what you were told is a plus sign is actually something else. Once you see it, the whole equation turns from notation into a sentence. Then he uses that sentence to walk you through how a signal actually gets from your phone to a satellite and back. One viewer called that section straight up magic. It is 4 minutes of it. The comments are the proof. A physics student wrote it explained what a semester with his professor could not. An electrical engineer admitted this is where the equations finally clicked. One person wrote: I cried and I do not even know why. His larger point: the wireless world is not magic and never was. It is one readable line, and reading it is a skill nobody bothered to teach you. One equation. Everything wireless. 14 minutes. It is in the video.

ooaes

28,543 views • 1 month ago

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

14,325 views • 24 days ago

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress leader Sachin Pilot says, "Tell me where is the controversy? Who is the author of the book that is being mentioned? He is someone who was made Army chief by this very government. If he is writing something, banning it or filing an FIR or not letting it be published - what do they want to hide? If Rahul Gandhi is mentioning excerpts from it and seeking clarification, what wrong is he doing? He is not an ordinary person, he is a former Army chief. If he has written something in the book, why is the Govt scared of having a discussion on it? If Govt feels that something wrong has been written, refute it. If it is correct, give a clarification..."

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress leader Sachin Pilot says, "Tell me where is the controversy? Who is the author of the book that is being mentioned? He is someone who was made Army chief by this very government. If he is writing something, banning it or filing an FIR or not letting it be published - what do they want to hide? If Rahul Gandhi is mentioning excerpts from it and seeking clarification, what wrong is he doing? He is not an ordinary person, he is a former Army chief. If he has written something in the book, why is the Govt scared of having a discussion on it? If Govt feels that something wrong has been written, refute it. If it is correct, give a clarification..."

ANI

49,792 views • 6 months ago

the docs said the caching is automatic, so you did nothing automatic is where it happens, not whether it happens the cache lives on the machine that built it, and your next request lands wherever the fleet sends it, which is usually not there, so it pays full price for a prefix it already paid to build there is a key that pins a conversation to one machine and it is a single header cached input is fifty cents a million against two dollars you never needed a smaller prompt you needed the request to land in the same place twice

the docs said the caching is automatic, so you did nothing automatic is where it happens, not whether it happens the cache lives on the machine that built it, and your next request lands wherever the fleet sends it, which is usually not there, so it pays full price for a prefix it already paid to build there is a key that pins a conversation to one machine and it is a single header cached input is fifty cents a million against two dollars you never needed a smaller prompt you needed the request to land in the same place twice

Lagosaur

16,892 views • 3 days ago

Garcia: I think it's not hard to figure out what member that was by looking at the photo and the fact it was not just one photo, it was one photo and then a second post that also included a photo as well. And so that was completely against the rules.

Garcia: I think it's not hard to figure out what member that was by looking at the photo and the fact it was not just one photo, it was one photo and then a second post that also included a photo as well. And so that was completely against the rules.

Acyn

105,302 views • 6 months ago

This is wild. I checked AOC’s personal feed to see how she was celebrating America’s 250th. Nothing. Not a post. Not a reply. Not even the usual performative paragraph. The people who lecture America the loudest never seem to love her when it counts.

This is wild. I checked AOC’s personal feed to see how she was celebrating America’s 250th. Nothing. Not a post. Not a reply. Not even the usual performative paragraph. The people who lecture America the loudest never seem to love her when it counts.

Election Wizard

28,540 views • 1 month ago

you wrapped the tool call in a try block and logged the error the model never found out the exception went to your log, the conversation got nothing, and nothing is indistinguishable from success so it kept planning around a file it believes exists, and wrote the summary of the run where the call worked one line of defensive code cost you twice it could not adapt to a failure it was never shown and the only thing that went wrong is the one thing your trace does not contain

you wrapped the tool call in a try block and logged the error the model never found out the exception went to your log, the conversation got nothing, and nothing is indistinguishable from success so it kept planning around a file it believes exists, and wrote the summary of the run where the call worked one line of defensive code cost you twice it could not adapt to a failure it was never shown and the only thing that went wrong is the one thing your trace does not contain

Lagosaur

18,294 views • 4 days ago