I'm the last person to ever ask for perfection. The problem is that educators are being told that video is so great. Then their schedules are crammed full by administration with hundreds of hours of video to show the kids. Leaving them with no time for reading, discussion, or project work. Time that is already taken by tests. So in the end, good educators who are probably way better than some of the awful standardized slop shown to children, have to waste hours showing mandated videos. Bad educators sit on their hands knowing they don't have to become better because the video is babysitting the kids. This dulls the kids to learning and sends them into a false impression that learning is 100% passive. Sorry, but this way of using video is a net negative to education.

The better option is to recognize that just like everything in education, you need diversity and play to each strategy's strengths according to the group being taught. Video is good to show things that cannot be demonstrated in class or to showcase highly specialized topics. But it has to be mixed with other strategies to be truly effective. What you must not do is pretend that video is always the better option for everything. Because that is absolutely not true. Specially since OP's assumptions are wrong.

watch the most engaging individuals instead of the average ones

This has no impact on education. If the teacher present in the class is average, a better instructor on the video has a marginal effect, if any at all.

presenting the content in a way designed by entire teams of top teachers

This has not happened and it's mostly unnecessary. Specially as the mythical “team of top teachers” has never existed, it is not a thing that exists anywhere. Education all over the world is usually designed by committee, with all the associated flaws and setbacks.

falling back on the average ones only for the interactive parts of education

The worst person for the most important part of the process doesn't sound good to me.

We have the science, we know that in order to have a positive effect videos must be short, display things that cannot be ordinarily experience in everyday life, and present concrete single topic lectures that can feed interaction and discussion in the classroom, or provide guidance to project work and problem solving. They are a tool that makes good educators better, but for average educators who don't know how to take advantage of it, it won't have much impact.

Well in my case, I leverage AI to extract specifics in long texts, such as level-appropriate vocabulary and collocations related to the topic. I can do this with YouTube video transcripts, for example,then use a different tool to quickly spit out learners definitions of all the words extracted, example sentences with fill-in-the blanks (emphasis on the topic of the lesson), and whatnot. I have to verify that the definitions and example sentences are suitable, then I slap everything together in a handout template I have in Affinity Publisher, along with some topic-related discussion questions. The students watch the video, and then I give them the handout afterwards.

That’s just one example.

I know of a company producing experimental AI tests, that basically put you in a D&D role playing scenario. It shows a scenario on screen, narrates a situation, then asks you to respond. Based on your response it’ll take you in one direction or another, the whole time grading your skills behind the scene. The students don’t even know they’re being tested. At the end, it prints out a score, but it feels more like the end of a video game match than a test.

I think that’s cool af.