I think this kind of things is potentially quite damaging, but in a subtle way. I read the Guardian article about this, and they highlighted some of the problems. They talked about taking opportunities from actual real people; and the potential for amplifying racial stereotypes. But I reckon there are other subtle problems that I'd like to highlight as well.

It could be argued that the AI character is made in good faith, for entertainment only, with no intention to deceive. And perhaps efforts are taken to be culturally sensitive / accurate, or whatever. So then what's the problem?

To understand it, perhaps we should first think about why people like this kind of content at all. Different people like things for different reasons, so each individual can think about this from their point of view. But I'd say that a lot of people watch animal videos and documentaries because it gives them a sense of what these animals are like. It shows what they look like, what kind of environment they live in, how they interact in that environment, and how they interact with people. Depending on the footage, it can also give a sense of achievement and effort in what was required to get that footage. Similarly for the presenter; seeing how a expert person with such personal experience and connection with the land talk about and interact with animals - its engaging and gives a sense of learning and excitement.

When watching an artificial video of this kind, it can perhaps trigger that same kind of enjoyment - but its empty of value. The presenter is not connected to the land or an expert. They don't exist at all. And the video is not showing evidence of how the animals behave or look; but rather just an AI's impression of it. It certainly didn't take any significant effort to record - because it wasn't recorded at all! So although it can trigger a similar sense of value in our brains, we're not actually getting what we feel like we're getting. It's empty calories so to speak. And its realism is entirely dependent real footage taken by real people who actually did the work. The AI generated version is easy and cheap to create, but the actual source data that it relies on is not. I suppose that's part of the 'theft' that Lenore Taylor @ The Guardian is talking about; but I have one more thing I want to draw attention to.

At best it is empty entertainment, but it can also give a warped and misleading view of the things we're supposedly learning about. It can also result in general apathy and disconnection. We see this realistic and engaging footage, but we know it is fake - and therefore of little importance or value. But it does look real, so it kind of makes everything else seem fake and of little value too. Any quirks or differences in other things we see start to be doubted or questioned. Images and experiences that use to be amazing and inspiring, and now just flat - because a general sense of doubt and indifference. The things people say, the way their talk, their passion - all under doubt. It may cause a kind of death of inspiration for some people exposed to it.

The propagation of artificial videos outpaces our social, legal, financial, and psychological systems for handing them. Probably we'd all do a bit better if this stuff wasn't being turbo charged by ultra-wealth companies and individuals. (Yes, as usual, I'm blaming wealth inequality.)

Well, like I said, it's subtle. So I hope I was about to convey my thoughts clearly enough that someone sees what I'm getting at!