[fwilliams]

This is hardly a discussion of previous work. The author of the video states the paper he implemented.

In any semi-decent peer reviewed venue, you would cite a wide variety of papers that solve a similar or related problem or introduce a concept related to the method in the paper.

The related work section of a paper is one of the most important parts since it puts the research into context. By citing other work, the authors explain what has already been done, and what contribution their work makes.

A related work section should also illustrate the downsides, limitations, and differences of other cited research. Limitations of other works are often poorly understood since very few people have had the time to evaluate them beyond the initial experiments done before first publication.

Research is not simply about presenting new techniques but also understanding the trade-offs that arise when choosing different solutions to a problem.

[BlackFly]

Many times the works cited occlude (as opposed to illuminate) relevant research and the context of the paper. For example, if you read a paper and find details lacking, will reading the works cited help you understand the paper or just waste your time? Many times you won't have an institute license for the journal, so what now? Request interlibrary access, piracy, call a colleague at another institute, assume the arxiv preprint is equal to the published version cited if available, give up? If you cite too broadly, the value of the citations just go down for the reader, both for an expert who is probably already aware of the other research and for the novice who doesn't have years to read the entire paper trail.

This of course comes up during the peer review process as well. The referee informs you of a paper that is tangentially relevant, but you couldn't find that during your literature search because it is paywalled. How relevant was it actually to the work you performed or to people reading your paper if it is not readily possible for you (and possibly your readers) to access the paper?

Citations in academia are often times more the currency of the trade than actual scholarship. There is a reason review articles exist, not every paper needs to be a review article in its own right.

[traverseda]

Replicating the results of existing papers is important too

[lorenzhs]

That is a different issue, though. The "Related Work" section is there to tell the reader about related approaches to similar problems, previous research on the same topic, etc. It's where you distinguish your work from what was previously done, and justify why this is a meaningful distinction. It's "what others have done and why we don't just use that".

Reproducibility is important but a completely different topic and I don't know why you're bringing it up here.