Why our videos use an AI presenter (and why that is worth a conversation)
If you found this page because one of our short videos annoyed you, that is a reasonable place to start. AI-generated video is everywhere right now, a lot of it is poor quality, and the instinct to roll your eyes at it is not wrong. This article is not going to tell you that instinct is mistaken. It is going to explain the decision we made, the trade-offs we knew we were accepting, and why we think the discomfort is actually worth sitting with for a moment.
What you probably saw
Short talking-head videos on LinkedIn or Instagram. An AI-generated presenter, disclosed as such on screen and in the caption, saying something about what AI can and cannot do for a specific type of business. Thirty to forty-five seconds. A link to a longer page on this site.
If your reaction was somewhere between mild irritation and genuine annoyance, you are in good company. Here are the objections we anticipated before we posted the first one.
The objections, taken seriously
It feels like exactly the kind of AI slop you are warning people about.
This is the sharpest one and we are not going to dodge it. There is a lot of low-effort AI-generated content online right now: generic, hollow, produced at volume because it is cheap, and indistinguishable from everything else except by how little it says. If our videos look like that to you, the problem is not your perception. It is on us to be different enough that the distinction is visible.
What we have tried to do is make the content do enough work that the format becomes secondary. The scripts are specific to each sector, they name real documents and real processes, and they are as likely to tell you something does not need AI as to tell you it does. Whether that clears the bar is a fair question. But the answer to AI slop is not always a human face; sometimes it is just something worth saying.
Using an AI presenter to talk about AI feels dishonest. The messenger undermines the message.
We considered this carefully, and we landed in the opposite place. This site is about having an honest conversation about where AI is and is not useful. Using AI to make the videos, disclosing that we have done so, and then pointing people at an article like this one feels more consistent with that position than pretending otherwise. If we had used a hired presenter and not mentioned it, that would have been a stranger choice for a site whose whole argument is that honesty about AI matters.
The disclosure is on screen and in the caption. It is not hidden. If you missed it, that is worth knowing; we may need to make it more prominent.
It feels impersonal. I would rather hear from a real person.
So would we, honestly. A real person who has run a conveyancing practice, or managed a recruitment desk, or handled claims for ten years would be a better presenter for this content than any AI tool. That person does not exist on our team, and hiring one to present videos across twelve sector pages and counting is not a realistic option for a small team with no production budget.
The alternative was not a human presenter. The alternative was no video at all. Whether that would have been the better call is a genuinely open question, and if you think it would have been, we are interested in that view.
AI is taking over everything and this is just more of it.
This one is less about our videos specifically and more about a broader and legitimate concern. AI-generated content is increasing in volume faster than most people's ability to filter it, and the default assumption that more content equals more value is one worth challenging. We are not going to pretend that a few more videos a week from us is a meaningful contribution to solving that problem.
What we will say is that the content on this site is written to push back against uncritical AI adoption, not to encourage it. If the format sits uncomfortably with the message, that tension is at least an honest one.
Why we did it anyway
Three reasons, and they are all connected.
The first is practical. Small team, no production budget, a site with sector-specific pages across twelve industries and a scanner that works for any UK business. Video is worth testing as a way of reaching people who will not find a website through search. AI video tools make that test possible without a production team. That is exactly the kind of use case this site describes: not transformative, not magic, just a specific task done at a cost that makes sense for the scale of the operation.
The second is consistency. This site is built around the argument that AI is a tool with real uses and real limits, and that the honest version of that conversation is more useful than the marketed one. Using AI to make the videos and being transparent about it felt like the consistent choice. Using it and hiding it would not have been.
The third is that it prompts this conversation. If you watched a video, felt something about it, and ended up here, then the video did something a static page might not have done. Whether your feeling was curiosity or irritation, you are now reading an article that tries to think carefully about AI rather than sell it. That seems like a reasonable outcome.
What we would genuinely like to know
If you have a view on this, we are interested in it. Not in a comments-section way; in a genuine way, because this site is trying to work out where AI is actually useful and the video question is a live example of that problem rather than an abstract one.
Is the format a dealbreaker for you regardless of the content? Does the disclosure change anything? Would you rather have no videos and more written content? Is there something about the execution specifically that grates, rather than AI video in principle?
The scanner at the top of the site takes about a minute and gives you a report on your own business. If you would rather just tell us what you think about the videos, you can do that too. Either way, thank you for reading this far. The fact that you did suggests the videos are not entirely without value, even if the format is not one you would have chosen.
If the scepticism is less about the video format and more about who we are and why we built this at all, the backstory is here.
If the broader question, whether AI is worth paying attention to at all, is the one you actually came here with, that's addressed here.