Sentence 1 is correct only if the speaker is describing a past event using the present tense. This is used in narratives.

Both sentences are grammatically correct, but there is a subtle difference in their usage. "It's the first time I see something like this." "It's the first time I've seen something like this." Sentence 1 uses the simple present tense ("see"), while Sentence 2 uses the present perfect tense ("I've seen"). The choice between the two depends on the context and the speaker's intention. Sentence 2 with the present perfect is often preferred when the speaker wants to emphasize the connection between the past experience (seeing something for the first time) and the present moment. It suggests that the experience is relevant to the current situation or has an impact on the speaker's current state of mind. In everyday conversation, both forms are used, and the difference in meaning is usually subtle. The choice between them depends on the nuance you want to convey. If you want to emphasize the connection to the present, the present perfect (Sentence 2) is more suitable. If you are simply stating a fact about a past experience, the simple present (Sentence 1) can be used.

The video makes a valid point. The "present perfect" word pattern is the one we use to describe our experiences. For example, I could list "I have gone to France" "I have had the measles" "I have danced the cha-cha" as experiences I have had. What unites these examples has nothing to do with the times when the events occurred (whether they be recent, long ago, or continuing into the present matters not). What unites them is that they are all experiences that I have. When you tell me that you are doing something for the "first time", you are announcing to me that it is an experience ("the first time doing it") so the present perfect word pattern is the one to use. There are ways to express the same idea without using present perfect: a) "This is my first time seeing this" b) "This is my first time for seeing this" c) "This is my first time to see this" Why are these OK? Why is the present perfect not needed here? It is because in each case, the sentence is really just "This is my first time", which is a perfectly good sentence. The additional phrases ("seeing this", "for seeing this", "to see this") contain no active verb. They are just subordinate clauses. For example, "to see this" is a noun clause so (c) is just like the sentence "This is my first time swimming". In (a), "seeing this" is an adverbial clause modifying "first" so it is just like the sentence "This is my first time here".

Yes, sort of. It's not the words "first time" that trigger the Present Perfect. It's that you're talking about an action that has taken place in a time period that we're still in. When the speaker says it's the first time he's seen such a thing, the implied time period is in his lifetime and his lifetime is a time period we're still in. Here are examples where "first time" doesn't trigger the Present Perfect: It's our first time. It happened the first time he did it. But it's much harder to think of an example with the whole phrase "It's the first time" followed by a clause with a noun and a verb that wouldn't trigger the Present Perfect; because even without another time frame being stated or implied, the implied time period would be all of recorded history: It's the first time it's ever happened.