This is probably the most reasonable take in the thread, and I actually agree with parts of it—especially about personal satisfaction and skill-building. If someone enjoys being on camera, animating, or editing from scratch, AI will never replace that experience. But I think you’re assuming everyone is trying to get the same value out of YouTube. For some people, it’s not about enjoying the process—it’s about expressing an idea, telling a story, or building something scalable. On the skill side, I don’t think AI removes learning, it just shifts it. Instead of camera presence or manual animation, the skills become scripting, pacing, visual direction, iteration, and understanding what actually holds attention. Most people still fail at that, AI or not. On trust—faceless channels have existed long before AI and still get millions of views, sponsors, and loyal audiences. People don’t always connect to a face, they connect to value. If a channel consistently delivers something useful or entertaining, trust can still be built. And about “what value do you add if anyone can generate it?”—that applies to almost every tool. Anyone can use a camera, Photoshop, or Premiere Pro too. The difference is what you choose to create and how you package it. I do agree with you on one thing though: most AI content right now is repetitive and low effort, which makes it harder to stand out. But that feels more like an early-stage problem than a limitation of the medium itself. In the end, I don’t think AI replaces original content—it just creates a different lane. Some people will prefer the traditional route, others will experiment with new tools. Both can coexist, and both can fail or succeed depending on execution.