It matters because of the inability to measure up front whether the content is sufficiently good. AI's best skill is making something look right and look good when it is, in fact, not right. It does this all the time, as opposed to human-made things, which are like that only for specific attempts at deception.

I'm starting to suspect a lot of the people saying things like this have a plan to get rich from AI content farming.

It's really not hard to understand what the problem is with AI generated history vids.

For pure entertainment maybe, but in the case of a history video how do you know whether the history you're being presented is accurate, or even has any basis in reality for that matter?

I honestly think your questions has more profound implications than other responders seem to appreciate.

I think a correlating answer can be found in visual effects for movies. And the answer "depends". When it's poorly done, the scene feels off or unbelievable somehow. But when done well, people have an enjoyable experience.

This same conversation existed when moving from practical effects to digital. and in the end, audiences only cared about quality.