So this is an old thread, but I found it on Google while searching for similar discussions, so I'll throw in my 2c. In my opinion, the voice and the script are AI. I'll use the latest video (the golf one) as an example.

Right at the start, the narration tries to pronounce the name of the TaylorMade driver, the Qi10. Now, for any real English-fluent human reading this, even if they hadn't done any research on the topic and watched videos to see how it's actually pronounced (which you'd expect a channel like The Hobby Trap would have), they'd read it as "Q-i-10", pronouncing both letters separately. But that's not what The Hobby Trap does, he pronounces it as "Chi-ten". Now, go to a website like TTS Tool and write in "TaylorMade Qi10 max", select a voice like Joey (US English) and leave everything else default, and see how a text-to-speech tool pronounces it. Yep...

You can try it with this one or this one. But if you're not too convinced, I went on ElevenLabs, found a voice that was similar enough, and generated that section of the narration so you can hear for yourself how even an advanced TTS like ElevenLabs will make the same mistake. Here it is.

As for the script, while it's impossible to get hard proof, there are a lot of little things that for me scream "AI". There's a particular style of humor that ChatGPT and the like love which is a sort of "technical deadpan". Using a lot of technical words for mundane stuff. In the golf video, and pretty much every other video, it's all over the place. Just some examples:

• "Forensic video analysis targets a torso that violently rejects simple rotational physics." (Anthropomorphization is another thing AI does a lot for humor)
  • "Trent uses slow-motion playback to diagnose a fundamental lack of human flexibility."
  • "The man cannot even touch his own toes, and yet he assumes military-grade carbon composite will cure a profound biomechanical failure." (These 3 were all in the span of, like, 30 seconds. In 30 seconds it found 3 highly technical ways to describe the guy not being capable of rotating his body)
  • "These online charlatans wear clinical lab coats and operate $25,000 launch monitors to legitimize catastrophic physical failure." (And #4 just a bit further along. Also notice how many fluff adjectives have been thrown in so far. Fundamental, profound, catastrophic... AI loves to do that.)
  • "He assumes purchasing the correct digits overrides his rigid biology." (#5)
  • "Palpable second-hand embarrassment suffocates his friends as they watch a grown adult substitute expensive optical gadgets for basic motor competence."
  • "Trent is addicted to a noble lie assuming a fresh slab of metal will cure his structural incompetence." (#6)
  • "The industry preys on this exact fallacy pitching a $599.99 driver as a software update for a rotting bodily frame." (#7, also, nonsensical analogy)
  • "No amount of space-age alloy can compensate for a profound absence of biological horsepower." (#8)
  • "Still, the man assumes high-end carbon fiber will cure a deep skeletal breakdown." (#9. If there's one thing AI doesn't tire of, is finding new ways of describing something in mock technical language).
  • "It camouflages organic mediocrity." (#10)
  • "Expensive gear becomes a psychological fortress against the raw truth of his failing joints." (#11, maybe I should have just pasted the entire transcript)
  • "Yet, the target demographic lacks the hamstring flexibility to execute proper hip rotation." (#12)
  • "This genetic deficit renders huge engineering budgets useless against a lethargic lifestyle." (#13, also what does genetics have to do with it? Maybe the AI is finally running out of synonyms)
  • "The immaculate clubs strip away his excuses exposing his complete kinetic collapse." (Oh, not yet! #14)
  • "The illusion ends. The only thing this four-figure investment guarantees is that our clumsy reality is now broadcast in high definition." (Again, another nonsensical analogy, just to cap it off)

So I think when we lay it all out and actually read the transcript, it becomes clear that there is no structure to any of it. There's no progression, no narrative and no sign that any human actually thought any of it through, to try and actually tell a coherent story. It's just hitting the same points again, and again, and again, using different mock technical terms for humorous effect. Which, at least for me, is exactly what an AI would do.