This wasn't intended as a criticism of you, it's a criticism of how incentives motivate the devaluation of artistic works of humans.
I didn't particularly like any of the videos, even the fairy one, no offence. This probably speaks more to the nature of the competition than the videos themselves (I could care less about WD-40, though I'm sure a really good video could sweep me away, similarly to how I'm often genuinely impressed by the creativity of superbowl commercials, even for products I don't care about).
But I can definitely understand the thought process and also liked your write-up. My compliments to your art, which is your writing and your description of your thought process, and your creative solution to a challenge within an economic framework where you need money to survive and can justify outsourcing other typically human endeavors to the robots in pursuit of financial compensation.
But that economic framework, the incentives, and the replacement of that human touch with AI output is depressing, and the thought that most things we encounter online and in media will be AI-generated in the future is terrifying. That's not a commentary on what you did, and again, you also wrote an excellent article about it which I highly doubt was mostly written by AI.
As you said (perhaps in another comment) you spent more time on the article than the actual competition. That effort shows. And it stands out among a sea of low-effort, AI-generated blog content even now on the Internet. But when you talk about "AI making storytelling easier" there's also an admission that we're moving to a world in which, in many situations, lower-effort content and AI-generated content are becoming more worthwhile under the reality where maximizing the ratio of monetary reward to time investment is necessary and expected.