Also the video discusses previous work starting at 4:40, so I'm confused what OP is complaining about unless the MarI/O guy re-uploaded with this attribution.
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.
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.
Reproducibility is important but a completely different topic and I don't know why you're bringing it up here.
Note that I don't say that SethBling is wrong. Seen as tinkering, this is perfectly fine, and he did a great job with the video. No hard feelings. I just use it as an example of how it is not research, because of the lack of scholarship.