Exact Instructions Challenge PB&J Classroom Friendly | Josh Darnit

Josh Darnit · 1.6M views · 2017 · 6:45

Open on YouTube

Stand-up & sketch comedyEducation & learningSoftware (other)comedy

Why Hacker News recommends it

HN uses it as shorthand for how hard it is to write unambiguous instructions, in discussions of programming, tutorials and LLM prompting.

What it is

A family comedy video in which kids write instructions for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and a parent follows them with exact literalness, producing chaos. This is the classroom-friendly version.

Recommended by 1 HN commenters across 1 different months, 2022 to 2026.

What Hacker News said

Recommends t-writescode · 2026-03 · on “Can You Instruct a Robot to Make a PBJ Sandwich?”

It’s a reference to a famous YouTube video[0] about how to write instructions that can be followed. One of the most important things a programmer needs to do is learn how to tell a computer how to do something. It’s a surprisingly hard skill because each step is way more complicated and has way more variables to go through. [this video]

Cites MattGaiser · 2022-01 · on “Ask HN: Why is there no high quality method for voice control of a PC?”

Part of the problem is that context is something AI is bad at and instructions are highly context dependent. [this video]

Cites 0xEF · 2025-01 · on “Rules for writing software tutorials”

> TEST YOUR DOCS Yes. > But this works better if you have someone else try it out instead 1000x yes. Yoz, you are wise and while what you say may seem like an obvious thing, it isn't. I was once in the unfortunate position of having to write manuals for software I did not design, so I went through it thinking I was the "average user." As it turns out, I was under the false impression that my documentation was perfectly understandable to anyone, to the point where they could sit down, rtfm and go. Boy was I wrong. I later got into an area of work where I had to help individuals with cognitive disabilities adapt to new workflows in factory settings. One of the exercises I had to do to earn my

Cites godelski · 2025-10 · on “Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG”

Do you know certain shoes are banned in running competitions? There's a really fine line here. We make shoes to help us run faster and keep our feet safe, right? Those two are directly related, as we can't run very fast if our feet are injured. But how far can this be taken? You can make shoes that dramatically reduce the impact when the foot strikes the ground, which reduces stress on the foot and legs. But that might take away running energy, which adds stresses and strains to the muscles and ligaments. So you modify your material to put energy back into the person's motion. This all makes running safer. But it also makes the runner faster. Does that example hack the metric? You might say

Cites godelski · 2025-11 · on “Cognitive and mental health correlates of short-form video use”

I don't think you're wrong but I think you're being too quick to attack the gp. They're not wrong either. The point you brought up doesn't contradict theirs but adds nuance. I'm all for nuance. Its also why I'm biased towards long form media as it's more likely to contain nuance, but not guaranteed. The gps specific example of lectures is quite narrow and more likely to have depth. Which is the entire problem of short form media, that we live in a complex world where we can't distill everything into 1-2 minute segments. Hell, even a lecture series, which will be over 10hrs of content is not enough to make one an expert on all but the most trivial of topics. You're right that we need nuance b

Cites godelski · 2026-02 · on “We Mourn Our Craft”

> why do you not program in assembly? There's a balance of levels of abstraction. Abstraction is a great thing. Abstraction can make your programs faster, more flexible, and more easy to understand. But abstraction can also make your programs slower, more brittle, and incomprehensible. The point of code is to write specification. That is what code is. The whole reason we use a pedantic and somewhat cryptic schema is that natural language is too abstract. This is the exact reason we created math. It really is even the same reason we created things like "legalese". Seriously, just try a simple exercise and be adversarial to yourself. Describe how to do something and try to find loopholes. Mali

Cites geon · 2026-02 · on “LLMs as the new high level language”

No. Natural language is vague, ambiguous and indirect. Watch these poor children struggle with writing instructions for making a sandwich: [this video]