I usually don't like too much sensationalism, but he gets a pass. That's just his style and I think he does it well without compromising on the information content. He acknowledges that the technique is slow by the way, but that's late in the video.

But I agree that the title is poorly chosen in this case and I think it would be more appropriate for the previous video about a similar paper [1] where the simulation is less accurate, but runs in real-time. It is as if the titles were swapped.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NF3CdXkm68

Edit: And of course, it is entertainment, what did you expect of a YouTube channel covering state-of-the-art research in less than 10 minutes! If you want to get serious, read the actual paper. Short(ish) YouTube videos is simply not the right format for serious work, sensationalism or not.

Before his channel exploded in popularity, it was similar but much more genuine and less formulaic and extreme. At some point he started to just sound like the LLM output conditioned on his earlier videos with fake excitement forced into every single sentence and I unsubscribed.

It's a shame because the papers he covers are fascinating but I can't stand his fakeness and pretend-excitement anymore. I also miss when he included more explanations of the algorithms and less throwbacks to previous videos.

I agree it doesn't have to be real-time to be valid, I think my mindset just goes to physics in video games which are usually real-time when I see contact solvers or most other things related to simulations.