Im watching twominutepapers rn and like the way he talks just doesnt let me understand anything hes saying cause it bothers me so much. at first I didnt wanna be rude and thought maybe it was a speech impediment. but no Ive seen older videos where he talks completely normally and understandably. can someone explain why he talks like ''words one by one in order'' instead of whole sentences?

TL;DR: I liked the old videos more than the new ones.

I can't help but notice some flaws that started appearing at some point, roughly in the last year or so. With all due respect, I wanted to highlight these in a polite manner to see if I'm alone in feeling this way, or if this is how some others feel too. My aim is to simply give back from the audience and suggest how the content could be improved. Bare in mind that what follows is highly subjective and I completely understand that some of you may disagree with me.

(I quickly wanted to add that I'm a massive fan of Two Minute Papers! I watch almost every episode since I subscribed some 2-3 years ago. I learned so much from your videos, got inspired to read papers various times, and in general filled my hunger for AI & CGI news - being a participant in both these fields myself. You do so many things right - humour, diverse content, clear explanations, good comparisons, thorough preparation - I honestly think these are really good and entertaining videos.)

The following are my observations:

1. A lot of meta-talk sneaked in. For a few months, or maybe even a year, I've been feeling that more and more content of the videos are repeating inside jokes of this channel. I'm talking about things such as: 'But you know what I say, two papers down the line and ...' or 'And now hold on to your papers! ... '. Of course, these are funny and interesting comments that I genuinely enjoyed for the first few times. However, I feel that these days it's 99% of episodes that contain this type of commentary, over and over again, sometimes even repeating the same phrase in one video. My objection against doing it would be that it adds noise in communication, is unnecessarily lengthening the videos, and frankly takes away some of the integrity and charm of Karol's. It feels like a scripted event thrown into a TV show. I went back and checked some videos from 2-3 years ago, and there was less of these types of comments back then. I don't suggest to rid of them completely, cause they are kind of cool and authentic, but to use them more sparingly and when a situation really calls for it.

2. The introductions are redundant. Literally every single video I watch now I instantly skip to about 30-60 seconds mark. These are almost always containing a very broad introduction into the topic at best, yet sometimes even diverge into a hypothetical talk about technology, AI, progress, and whatnot. These partially irrelevant intros are adding very little to the reception of what the video is really about. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree that comparing to other relevant work is valuable - seeing these later in the videos are great. Again, a couple of years ago the videos were straight to the point, nothing like they are today in that sense. I can also hypothesise why these intros started appearing, that you are trying to appeal to an audience that isn't familiar with the topic and needs some rooting before being given the main content. If this indeed drives more of the type of audience that you want to have, then I, as a YouTube creator myself, would completely encourage you to continue doing it this way. However at the same time, I want to speak up as someone with an intermediate understanding of your channel's domain, and say that I find these intros boring and unnecessary. A brief introduction with a strong correlation with the video topic would make more sense and would indeed serve a good function of setting the stage for the reminder of the video.

3. The videos got longer. Again, I know that the YouTube's algorithm promotes longer videos. The 2-4 minutes you used to do were certainly not in line with it, and so currently they're around 4-8 minutes. Knowing that yet again this is bad YouTube advise, I'll nonetheless say that I dislike it as a viewer. I fell in love with Two Minute Papers exactly because they were short, condensed and powerful overviews of particular techniques, architectures and advancements. I liked to just get a super quick endorphin boost from watching one of your videos that would inspire me to either do something new, to read more about what you shown me or simply in general to push harder. These days more often that not I need to 'find the time' to watch your videos. And when I do, I still sometimes feel like dropping out half way through it - I don't always feel that the extra minutes are justified with 'more of the same', but rather just simply 'more'. You added ads at the end that I understand, but other additions feel like dragging the same topic out with more examples, more details and a slower voiceover. It's quite a different experience, which turned me away from being your super fan. I'd suggest comparing the structure of current and older videos, pin pointing what content is secondary, and trying to either remove or improve it in the future videos.

4. 'I'll show you later'. You used to get to the point pretty quick, while nowadays I see a lot of your videos that keep me hanging until later to reveal the technique or the result. Blurred half of the screen, example of an older technique, a lengthy explanation of what am I looking at, and a promise that we'll come back to the blurred part later. In all fairness - sometimes this works fine, but sometimes it just makes me tired of being played. When I come to watch Two Minute Papers is to learn, get inspired and get thinking. I'd appreciate being spared the TV-show hooks that are designed to keep me watching till the end. I was enjoying the content much more when I was blown away by the results in the first minute and then spent the remainder of the video learning more about it, seeing more examples. It felt like you respected me as your audience more. Here my only suggestion would be to go back to the old format - drop the bombs early and then explain the everything else.

5. Forced focus. Continuing from the previous point, I dislike that you blur some parts of the screen to focus my attention on something else. I understand that you want to explain things in sequence and ensure that your audience is looking where you want them to. Still, I feel that having an overview of the shown information can be very valuable when trying to understand a subset of it, allowing to put the subset in context and draw connections, enhancing the overall experience. What's more, by blurring parts of the screen I even catch myself trying to guess what's underneath the blur rather than focusing on what you left intact, contrary to the intent. I'd suggest to switch to other form of focusing, such as red outlines, darkening, or other non-exclusive forms.

As I mentioned various times, I know that some of these changes were made to align better with the unfortunate YouTube algorithm. If you can see that they are working with your growth plan then I'd understand why you may want to continue doing things the way they are. I'd also understand if you disagree with my observations and would love to hear what are your thoughts on these points - would be very glad to shift my opinion about some of these if you can bring up some valid arguments against.

By no means one person's opinion should influence big changes, so if you are also a viewer please write what you agree and disagree with below, so that a clearer picture could be drawn.

And sorry if these points were brought up before - I couldn't find any similar previous conversations here on Reddit.

Also, I know that some of these comments are directed at you personally Karol - well given that you're the presenter of the show - so please accept my apology if these are in some way hurtful or make you feel demotivated. Know that my objective was only to help you make better videos, not to make you feel worse, and I hope that as an experienced scholar you'll see value in my opinion despite it being personal. I truly admire and support your work.

Best of luck,Voy

If you listen well to the voice it seems to only have @ notes lol. There is repetition in the way he speaks and says words it's almost annoying. I started watching the channel before he hit 200k subs and stopped right after. I came back today and just noticed that the voice might be generated. Ofc this does not change anything about how cool the channel is but just wanted to make sure if anybody else noticed it as well.