I am sure calling modern heuristics "AI" gets people excited, but it doesn't seem "Magical" when trivial implementations are functionally equivalent. =3
I know metahuman. As impressive as it is, when you judge by the standards of game graphics, if you are ever mislead into thinking metahumans are real humans or even real physically existing things it's time to see your eye doctor (and/or do MRI head scan).
On the other hand AI videos can be easily mistaken for people or hyper realistic physical sculptures.
There's something basic about how light works that traditional computer graphics still fails to grasp. Looking at its productions and comparing it to what AI generates is like looking at output of amateur and an artist. Sure, maybe artist doesn't always draw all 5 fingers but somehow captures the essence of the image in seemingly random arrangement of light and dark strokes, while amateur just tries to do their best but fails in some very significant ways.
"AI" videos make many errors all the time, but most people are not aware of what to look for... Undetectable CGI is done in film/games all the time, and indeed it takes talent to hide the fact it is fake.
One could rely on the media encoder to garble output enough to look more plausible (people on potato devices are used to looking at garbage content.) However, at the end of the day the "uncanny valley" effect takes over every-time even for live action data in a auto-generated asset, as the missing data can't be "Magically" recovered with 100% certainty.