about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,825 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and the second variable is Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia.  The chart goes from 2009 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image

AI explanation

The more clickbait-y Tom Scott's video titles become, the more they attract attention from seagulls in French Polynesia. These seagulls, known for their strong wing power, inadvertently generate extra hydroenergy as they flock around the turbines, giving a whole new meaning to the term "bird power."

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ A photo-realistic image ] A serene coastal landscape in French Polynesia, with crystal clear waters and an array of spinning hydroenergy turbines. Groups of majestic seagulls with outspread wings gracefully circle the turbines, adding an ethereal touch to the scene. In the distance, the soft glow of the sun casts a warm and inviting light over the entire setting. Meanwhile, the turbines’ motion, together with the seagulls’ effortless flights, harmoniously convey a sense of natural beauty and sustainable energy generation. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Voxel art Woodblock painting An image that looks like it is a scene from A Disney Movie Celtic art A photo-realistic image
ChatGPT: A photo-realistic image

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia, in the following situation: The more clickbait-y Tom Scott's video titles become, the more they attract attention from seagulls in French Polynesia. These seagulls, known for their strong wing power, inadvertently generate extra hydroenergy as they flock around the turbines, giving a whole new meaning to the term "bird power.". Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In French Polynesia, seagulls with outspread wings flock around the spinning turbines, generating hydroenergy. Meanwhile, Tom Scott's clickbait-y video titles catch the seagulls' attention, leading them to circle the turbines more enthusiastically.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ A photo-realistic image ] and depicting this scene: In French Polynesia, seagulls with outspread wings flock around the spinning turbines, generating hydroenergy. Meanwhile, Tom Scott's clickbait-y video titles catch the seagulls' attention, leading them to circle the turbines more enthusiastically. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ A photo-realistic image ] A serene coastal landscape in French Polynesia, with crystal clear waters and an array of spinning hydroenergy turbines. Groups of majestic seagulls with outspread wings gracefully circle the turbines, adding an ethereal touch to the scene. In the distance, the soft glow of the sun casts a warm and inviting light over the entire setting. Meanwhile, the turbines’ motion, together with the seagulls’ effortless flights, harmoniously convey a sense of natural beauty and sustainable energy generation.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how increases in How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are positively influenced Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia

The Journal of Mirthful Technology and Lighthearted Engineering

Jan 2024
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from AI analysis of YouTube video titles and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8838544 and p < 0.01 for 2009 to 2021.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Greetings, esteemed readers and fellow purveyors of scientific tom-foolery! In the realm where clickbait meets hydroelectric power, we find ourselves at the intersection of captivating titles and sustainable energy generation. This peculiar confluence of YouTube shenanigans and renewable energy sources has led us down a path sprinkled with both data-driven revelations and the occasional double entendre.

We are not merely in pursuit of knowledge but also in search of a good laugh, all while donning our statistical capes and wielding the power of correlation coefficients with the finesse of a stand-up comedian. The title of this paper may raise an eyebrow or elicit a chuckle, but fear not, for behind the playful wording lies a serious intent to shed light on the unexplored relationship between YouTube clickbait and the current flowing through French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.

Our research aims to merge the seemingly incongruent worlds of online entertainment tactics and renewable energy production, proving that statistical analyses can indeed be infused with a hearty dose of humor. Through this whimsical exploration, we embark on an adventure that marries the rigors of science with the capricious nature of internet whimsy. After all, who said that statistical correlational studies couldn’t have a sense of humor? Let’s dive into the realm of data and puns, where the yin and yang of science and silliness converge.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a few real TV shows that sound like they might be relevant to the topic that you watched as research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Greetings, esteemed readers and fellow purveyors of scientific tom-foolery! In the realm where clickbait meets hydroelectric power, we find ourselves at the intersection of captivating titles and sustainable energy generation. This peculiar confluence of YouTube shenanigans and renewable energy sources has led us down a path sprinkled with both data-driven revelations and the occasional double entendre.
We are not merely in pursuit of knowledge but also in search of a good laugh, all while donning our statistical capes and wielding the power of correlation coefficients with the finesse of a stand-up comedian. The title of this paper may raise an eyebrow or elicit a chuckle, but fear not, for behind the playful wording lies a serious intent to shed light on the unexplored relationship between YouTube clickbait and the current flowing through French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.
Our research aims to merge the seemingly incongruent worlds of online entertainment tactics and renewable energy production, proving that statistical analyses can indeed be infused with a hearty dose of humor. Through this whimsical exploration, we embark on an adventure that marries the rigors of science with the capricious nature of internet whimsy. After all, who said that statistical correlational studies couldn’t have a sense of humor? Let’s dive into the realm of data and puns, where the yin and yang of science and silliness converge.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Smith et al.," the authors find that the influence of clickbait in digital media has become a topic of great interest in the field of communication and information theory. The manipulation of headlines and titles to garner attention has been a well-documented phenomenon, with implications ranging from user engagement to the dissemination of misinformation. Similarly, "Doe," delves into the psychology behind attention-grabbing techniques utilized in the digital landscape, emphasizing the role of curiosity and anticipation in driving user interaction.

Moving beyond the realm of serious scholarly work, real-world applications of clickbait tactics can be found in books such as "Contagious: How to Build Word of Mouth in the Digital Age" by Jonah Berger, which discusses the viral nature of online content. On the lighter side, fictional literature also offers insights into the realm of attention-grabbing tactics, with works like "The Clicking of Cuthbert" by P.G. Wodehouse, where humor and satire intersect with the world of media.


Another poignant source of inspiration for our study comes from our extensive "research" into (ahem) television shows. The connection between clickbait tactics and user engagement can be observed through programs such as "Black Mirror," where the dark side of digital media is explored with a dystopian twist. In a less ominous vein, programs like "The Joy of Painting," hosted by the inimitable Bob Ross, offer a lighthearted exploration of captivating visual content – a facet of online engagement that cannot be discounted in our analysis.

As we turn our attention to the realm of hydroelectric power and renewable energy, the literature is rife with studies such as "Jones and Co." that explore the intricate balance between energy production and environmental sustainability. The potential for harnessing the power of flowing water in regions like French Polynesia is highlighted in works such as "Hydropower Engineering Handbook" by Mays and "Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future" by Boyle et al., providing valuable insights into the practical aspects of hydroelectric power generation.

But let’s not forget the amusingly fictional side of literature! Works such as "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" by Haruki Murakami may not seem directly related, but the concept of energy and power dynamics certainly takes center stage in its enigmatic narrative. And who can overlook the classic "Watership Down" by Richard Adams, where the flow of rivers and the vitality of nature are intricately woven into the story? Such works, though not directly addressing hydroelectric power, offer a whimsical lens through which to view the subject matter.

In summary, our foray into the literature has uncovered a treasure trove of serious and not-so-serious insights, guaranteeing a laugh or two along the way. With this eclectic blend of scholarly pursuits and fictional musings, we gear up to unravel the enigmatic interplay between frivolous YouTube titles and the robust hum of French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from AI analysis of YouTube video titles and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 2009 to 2021

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Greetings, esteemed readers and fellow purveyors of scientific tom-foolery! In the realm where clickbait meets hydroelectric power, we find ourselves at the intersection of captivating titles and sustainable energy generation. This peculiar confluence of YouTube shenanigans and renewable energy sources has led us down a path sprinkled with both data-driven revelations and the occasional double entendre.
We are not merely in pursuit of knowledge but also in search of a good laugh, all while donning our statistical capes and wielding the power of correlation coefficients with the finesse of a stand-up comedian. The title of this paper may raise an eyebrow or elicit a chuckle, but fear not, for behind the playful wording lies a serious intent to shed light on the unexplored relationship between YouTube clickbait and the current flowing through French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.
Our research aims to merge the seemingly incongruent worlds of online entertainment tactics and renewable energy production, proving that statistical analyses can indeed be infused with a hearty dose of humor. Through this whimsical exploration, we embark on an adventure that marries the rigors of science with the capricious nature of internet whimsy. After all, who said that statistical correlational studies couldn’t have a sense of humor? Let’s dive into the realm of data and puns, where the yin and yang of science and silliness converge.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the enigmatic connection between Tom Scott's tantalizing YouTube video titles and the hydroelectric prowess of French Polynesia, our research team harnessed an array of data mining and analysis techniques, along with a sprinkle of statistical mirth. Our unconventional approach incorporated AI algorithms to sift through the endless troves of YouTube metadata, capturing the essence of clickbait-y allure with the precision of a trained mime artist.

The first step in our zany methodology involved deploying a battalion of algorithms to scrutinize and scrutinize some more, examining the clickbait quotient of Tom Scott's video titles. Using a combination of linguistic parsing, sentiment analysis, and pun detection algorithms, we meticulously quantified the level of linguistic hijinks and whimsical wordplay present in each title. We dared to dive into the linguistic soup of clickbait, frolicking in the sea of attention-grabbing phrasings and semi-ridiculous claims, all in the name of scientific curiosity and a side helping of amusement.

Simultaneously, to gauge the hydroelectric potential pulsating through French Polynesia, we hitched our data wagons to the Energy Information Administration's sturdy chariot. The meticulous energy production data, akin to the steady flow of a serene stream, was pored over, scrutinized, and given the statistical equivalent of a firm but friendly handshake. Our intrepid team methodically tabulated the hydroelectric energy output of French Polynesia, ensuring that no metaphorical drop of data was left unmeasured.

Next, armed with a cavalcade of statistical tools and a knack for whimsical wit, we delved into the wacky world of numerical analyses. We unleashed the formidable forces of correlation coefficients, t-tests, and regression models, all with the gleeful spirit of a jestful juggler at a data-driven circus. Through this cacophony of statistical merriment, we meticulously measured the strength and significance of the relationship between the clickbait-y YouTube titles and the hydroelectric energy generation in French Polynesia.

The pivotal period from 2009 to 2021 provided the canvas for our comedic inquiry, allowing us to paint a detailed picture of the correlations and trends with the precision of a meticulous caricaturist. Our methodological exploits traversed the terrain from linguistics to renewable energy, intertwining the strands of statistical analyses and the whimsy of internet sensationalism into a tapestry of outlandish insight and eccentric discovery.

In summary, our multifaceted approach to this entertaining venture involved embracing AI analysis, statistical wizardry, and a dash of plain old internet quirkiness to unearth the connection between Tom-foolery on YouTube and the hydroelectric heartbeat of French Polynesia. This approach not only allowed us to unravel the mysteries of clickbait and renewable energy but also infused the rigors of research with an infectious sense of fun, proving that scientific investigations can indeed have a side of humor.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from AI analysis of YouTube video titles and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 2009 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.8838544, r-squared of 0.7811987, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Greetings, esteemed readers and fellow purveyors of scientific tom-foolery! In the realm where clickbait meets hydroelectric power, we find ourselves at the intersection of captivating titles and sustainable energy generation. This peculiar confluence of YouTube shenanigans and renewable energy sources has led us down a path sprinkled with both data-driven revelations and the occasional double entendre.
We are not merely in pursuit of knowledge but also in search of a good laugh, all while donning our statistical capes and wielding the power of correlation coefficients with the finesse of a stand-up comedian. The title of this paper may raise an eyebrow or elicit a chuckle, but fear not, for behind the playful wording lies a serious intent to shed light on the unexplored relationship between YouTube clickbait and the current flowing through French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.
Our research aims to merge the seemingly incongruent worlds of online entertainment tactics and renewable energy production, proving that statistical analyses can indeed be infused with a hearty dose of humor. Through this whimsical exploration, we embark on an adventure that marries the rigors of science with the capricious nature of internet whimsy. After all, who said that statistical correlational studies couldn’t have a sense of humor? Let’s dive into the realm of data and puns, where the yin and yang of science and silliness converge.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon delving into the delightful world of statistical analysis, we found a strong correlation (r = 0.8838544) between the clickbait-y allure of Tom Scott's YouTube video titles and the hydroelectric power generated in French Polynesia. It seems that the magnetism of enticing video titles is not just a way to lure unsuspecting web surfers but might also have a shocking influence on clean energy production. The r-squared value of 0.7811987 further underscores the robustness of this connection, leaving us positively charged with excitement over these electrifying results.

Our findings transcend the conventional boundaries of research, shedding light on the potential impact of online entertainment tactics on real-world energy dynamics. The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a layer of statistical significance to our jocular journey, demonstrating that the relationship between clickbait and hydropower generation is no laughing matter.

Fig. 1 illustrates the compelling correlation between the studied variables, showcasing a clear trend reminiscent of a well-crafted punchline: it delivers the impact we anticipated and leaves us in awe of the power of both data and comedic timing. Just as a punchline can elicit a hearty laugh, so too does our research divulge the surprising connection between online clickbait and renewable energy generation.

In conclusion, our exploration into this uncharted territory has not only yielded intriguing findings but has also sprinkled a dash of humor into the traditionally stoic realm of scientific inquiry. This research not only provides valuable insights into the quirky intersection of online content strategies and sustainable energy but also serves as a testament to the idea that even the most serious of studies can have a lighthearted side. We hope that our results inspire a chuckle or two while sparking further curiosity in the nexus of statistical analysis and whimsical exploration.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Smith et al.," the authors find that the influence of clickbait in digital media has become a topic of great interest in the field of communication and information theory. The manipulation of headlines and titles to garner attention has been a well-documented phenomenon, with implications ranging from user engagement to the dissemination of misinformation. Similarly, "Doe," delves into the psychology behind attention-grabbing techniques utilized in the digital landscape, emphasizing the role of curiosity and anticipation in driving user interaction.
Moving beyond the realm of serious scholarly work, real-world applications of clickbait tactics can be found in books such as "Contagious: How to Build Word of Mouth in the Digital Age" by Jonah Berger, which discusses the viral nature of online content. On the lighter side, fictional literature also offers insights into the realm of attention-grabbing tactics, with works like "The Clicking of Cuthbert" by P.G. Wodehouse, where humor and satire intersect with the world of media.

Another poignant source of inspiration for our study comes from our extensive "research" into (ahem) television shows. The connection between clickbait tactics and user engagement can be observed through programs such as "Black Mirror," where the dark side of digital media is explored with a dystopian twist. In a less ominous vein, programs like "The Joy of Painting," hosted by the inimitable Bob Ross, offer a lighthearted exploration of captivating visual content – a facet of online engagement that cannot be discounted in our analysis.
As we turn our attention to the realm of hydroelectric power and renewable energy, the literature is rife with studies such as "Jones and Co." that explore the intricate balance between energy production and environmental sustainability. The potential for harnessing the power of flowing water in regions like French Polynesia is highlighted in works such as "Hydropower Engineering Handbook" by Mays and "Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future" by Boyle et al., providing valuable insights into the practical aspects of hydroelectric power generation.
But let’s not forget the amusingly fictional side of literature! Works such as "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle" by Haruki Murakami may not seem directly related, but the concept of energy and power dynamics certainly takes center stage in its enigmatic narrative. And who can overlook the classic "Watership Down" by Richard Adams, where the flow of rivers and the vitality of nature are intricately woven into the story? Such works, though not directly addressing hydroelectric power, offer a whimsical lens through which to view the subject matter.
In summary, our foray into the literature has uncovered a treasure trove of serious and not-so-serious insights, guaranteeing a laugh or two along the way. With this eclectic blend of scholarly pursuits and fictional musings, we gear up to unravel the enigmatic interplay between frivolous YouTube titles and the robust hum of French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the delightful world of statistical analysis, we found a strong correlation (r = 0.8838544) between the clickbait-y allure of Tom Scott's YouTube video titles and the hydroelectric power generated in French Polynesia. It seems that the magnetism of enticing video titles is not just a way to lure unsuspecting web surfers but might also have a shocking influence on clean energy production. The r-squared value of 0.7811987 further underscores the robustness of this connection, leaving us positively charged with excitement over these electrifying results.
Our findings transcend the conventional boundaries of research, shedding light on the potential impact of online entertainment tactics on real-world energy dynamics. The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a layer of statistical significance to our jocular journey, demonstrating that the relationship between clickbait and hydropower generation is no laughing matter.
Fig. 1 illustrates the compelling correlation between the studied variables, showcasing a clear trend reminiscent of a well-crafted punchline: it delivers the impact we anticipated and leaves us in awe of the power of both data and comedic timing. Just as a punchline can elicit a hearty laugh, so too does our research divulge the surprising connection between online clickbait and renewable energy generation.
In conclusion, our exploration into this uncharted territory has not only yielded intriguing findings but has also sprinkled a dash of humor into the traditionally stoic realm of scientific inquiry. This research not only provides valuable insights into the quirky intersection of online content strategies and sustainable energy but also serves as a testament to the idea that even the most serious of studies can have a lighthearted side. We hope that our results inspire a chuckle or two while sparking further curiosity in the nexus of statistical analysis and whimsical exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study has uncovered a shockingly strong connection between the clickbait-y titles of Tom Scott's YouTube videos and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. It's as if the alluring titles are casting a spell not only on unsuspecting web surfers but also on clean energy production. This connection is anything but a "joule" – it's electrifying!

Our findings not only back up the prior research on the influence of clickbait in digital media but also provide a "watt"-load of evidence for the unexpected impact of online entertainment tactics on real-world energy dynamics. This correlation is so striking that it's almost "Ohm"-azing how enticing titles can potentially stimulate hydroelectric power output.

In the grand tradition of Bob Ross painting happy little trees, our results paint a vivid picture of the humorous side of scientific inquiry. It's not every day that statistics "conduct" us to unexpected discoveries with a side of laughter. Our study shows that behind the serious facade of academic research lies a world of electricity-infused quirkiness.

Our Fig. 1 illustrates the correlation between clickbait-y YouTube video titles and hydroelectric power generation with a trend reminiscent of a well-crafted punchline – it delivers the impact we anticipated and leaves us in awe of the power of both data and comedic timing. It's as if the results themselves are delivering a "shock" to the conventional boundaries of research.

In the end, our research has not only provided valuable insights into the whimsical intersection of online content strategies and sustainable energy but has also proven that even the most serious of studies can have a lighthearted "charge." We hope that our findings inspire a chuckle or two and spark further curiosity in the quirky nexus of statistical analysis and unexpected connections between variables.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a silly researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are and Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia"

[[ABSTRACT]]
This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Greetings, esteemed readers and fellow purveyors of scientific tom-foolery! In the realm where clickbait meets hydroelectric power, we find ourselves at the intersection of captivating titles and sustainable energy generation. This peculiar confluence of YouTube shenanigans and renewable energy sources has led us down a path sprinkled with both data-driven revelations and the occasional double entendre.
We are not merely in pursuit of knowledge but also in search of a good laugh, all while donning our statistical capes and wielding the power of correlation coefficients with the finesse of a stand-up comedian. The title of this paper may raise an eyebrow or elicit a chuckle, but fear not, for behind the playful wording lies a serious intent to shed light on the unexplored relationship between YouTube clickbait and the current flowing through French Polynesia’s hydroelectric turbines.
Our research aims to merge the seemingly incongruent worlds of online entertainment tactics and renewable energy production, proving that statistical analyses can indeed be infused with a hearty dose of humor. Through this whimsical exploration, we embark on an adventure that marries the rigors of science with the capricious nature of internet whimsy. After all, who said that statistical correlational studies couldn’t have a sense of humor? Let’s dive into the realm of data and puns, where the yin and yang of science and silliness converge.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the delightful world of statistical analysis, we found a strong correlation (r = 0.8838544) between the clickbait-y allure of Tom Scott's YouTube video titles and the hydroelectric power generated in French Polynesia. It seems that the magnetism of enticing video titles is not just a way to lure unsuspecting web surfers but might also have a shocking influence on clean energy production. The r-squared value of 0.7811987 further underscores the robustness of this connection, leaving us positively charged with excitement over these electrifying results.
Our findings transcend the conventional boundaries of research, shedding light on the potential impact of online entertainment tactics on real-world energy dynamics. The p-value of less than 0.01 adds a layer of statistical significance to our jocular journey, demonstrating that the relationship between clickbait and hydropower generation is no laughing matter.
Fig. 1 illustrates the compelling correlation between the studied variables, showcasing a clear trend reminiscent of a well-crafted punchline: it delivers the impact we anticipated and leaves us in awe of the power of both data and comedic timing. Just as a punchline can elicit a hearty laugh, so too does our research divulge the surprising connection between online clickbait and renewable energy generation.
In conclusion, our exploration into this uncharted territory has not only yielded intriguing findings but has also sprinkled a dash of humor into the traditionally stoic realm of scientific inquiry. This research not only provides valuable insights into the quirky intersection of online content strategies and sustainable energy but also serves as a testament to the idea that even the most serious of studies can have a lighthearted side. We hope that our results inspire a chuckle or two while sparking further curiosity in the nexus of statistical analysis and whimsical exploration.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we bring this whimsical expedition to a close, it's crystal clear that the relationship between Tom Scott's clickbait-y YouTube titles and hydroelectric power generation in French Polynesia is no joke – well, maybe just a little bit of a joke. Our findings have electrified the research community, providing a voltage of amusement and insight into the interconnected currents of online tom-foolery and sustainable energy production.

We've ridden the statistical waves, surfing on correlation coefficients and p-values, and we can confidently say that the current of correlation between clickbait and hydropower is shockingly strong. It seems that Tom Scott's captivating titles are not just generating clicks but also sparking a surge in clean energy production, proving that the power of entertainment tactics extends beyond the digital realm.

As we bid adieu to this entertaining escapade, we assert with a wink and a nod that further research in this electrifying field is not needed. The spark of knowledge and humor we've ignited shall continue to shine as a beacon of scientific hilarity. So, here's to the fusion of jocularity and research – may the power of statistical analysis always be illuminated with a dash of levity!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Mirthful Technology and Lighthearted Engineering


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The International Society for Humor and Energy Research


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Clicks and Giggles: Exploring the Connection Between Tom-foolery on YouTube Titles and Hydroelectric Power Generation in French Polynesia with an abstract of This study delves into the peculiar relationship between Tom Scott's captivating clickbait-y YouTube video titles and the generation of hydroelectric power in French Polynesia. Through the power of AI analysis and a dash of good humor, we embarked on a quirky quest to uncover the potential impact of irresistible titles on energy production. Our findings revealed a surprisingly strong correlation coefficient of 0.8838544, with a p-value less than 0.01, over the period from 2009 to 2021. This research aims to provide both laughter and insight into the wacky world of clickbait and renewable energy, transcending the conventional boundaries of academia with a touch of whimsy.

ChatGPT:

Tom Scott, clickbait, YouTube titles, hydroelectric power, French Polynesia, AI analysis, renewable energy, correlation coefficient, energy production, laughter, whimsy, academic research

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are
Detailed data title: How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are, as rated by an AI.
Source: AI analysis of YouTube video titles
Additional Info: I asked a large language model, 'On a scale of 1-10, how _______ do you think this YouTube video title is?' for every video.

See what else correlates with How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are

Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia
Detailed data title: Total hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia

Correlation r = 0.8838544 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.7811987 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 78.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are) over the 13 years from 2009 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.1E-5. 0.0000611388549604737100000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.88 in 0.0061% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 16,356 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 12 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 12 because we have two variables measured over a period of 13 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.65, 0.96 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
2009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are (Clickbait-y score)4.684285.66674.53.82614.66673.91033.92773.88894.67194.77974.30365.1569
Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia (Billion kWh)0.2080.2730.2230.1970.1520.1669540.1670120.1840040.1763880.1649430.180.180.18




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([4.6842,8,5.6667,4.5,3.8261,4.6667,3.9103,3.9277,3.8889,4.6719,4.7797,4.3036,5.1569,])
array_2 = np.array([0.208,0.273,0.223,0.197,0.152,0.166954,0.167012,0.184004,0.176388,0.164943,0.18,0.18,0.18,])
array_1_name = "How clickbait-y Tom Scott YouTube video titles are"
array_2_name = "Hydopower energy generated in French Polynesia"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating skills are legendary!


Correlation ID: 4825 · Black Variable ID: 25461 · Red Variable ID: 23675
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0