> The problem with auto-generated voices in videos like this is as a viewer I can't distinguish between work that someone put deliberate production time into, and something churned out by a content farm.
If machine voiced vs human voiced is the only discernible difference in the end, this seems like a non-argument.
As someone that is building a tool in the roughly same space (machine voiced video generation), I can just say that the use-cases go far beyond "content-farm". It also enables a lot of useful content like e.g. internal training videos, or paired with browser automation, you can have narrated always up-to-date video manuals of your product. In the education space, it enables a more iterative way to produce material where you previously couldn't afford to tweak parts of a video, as you would have to narrate it again.
And I also don't think that it will amplify the existence of such videos significantly. There are already Youtube channels that already do just that, and people don't seem to mind. E.g. there is a channel that uploads "car news" content, which basically just has a narration on top of a series of pictures of a car, and the amount of views and the rating on those videos is pretty good. In the end its just a few fact bulletins stretched into an overly long video using the same old worn out phrases (just like regular "car news"), and I don't see why a human would need to waste their time to voice that.