This would actually be great. So many researchers have a marketing problem with explaining and getting people excited for their work.
The content is usually reasonably strong but the tone is always off and it never quite understands what it is a reader/viewer needs to really get to grips with the topic if they don't already have a prior foundational understanding (though I notice this about a lot of other media outlets with professional science communicators too). It also has poor editorial thinking around what bits are most likely to be interesting and cohesive when considered as part of the whole piece.
But I'm still reasonably convinced as AI improves it ought to be able to replace me with the right workflow/context/prompting. I think there will always be a demand for my (and many other writers') talents as they are so it doesn't really bother me, but it'd be great to extend the work to all the many scientific discoveries that don't get the same attention. If anyone is serious about developing something like this, I'd be interested in partnering with them as someone with domain expertise on science communication and familiar with prompt engineering (email in bio).
I think you're right about the editorial thinking + what do people find interesting parts. But that doesn't have to be solved by directly by AI, it's easy enough to sidestep the problem and provide a nice interface for the human-in-the-loop part. I'd imagine that would save you a ton of time by having a nice starting point depending on how much you have to rewrite for tone.
LLMs make that much easier. As I collect primary sources during my drafting/writing phrase, I can type up any non-trivial claims I'm making in my script in a separate document, share that with the LLM and say "Quoting directly from the set of attached PDFs, identifying which document, and on which page the quote comes from, find content which directly supports each of these assertions" and it generally goes a great job. At any rate, I have to check each of those quotes for accuracy but the help in _finding_ those quotes in order to pass a stringent fact checking procedure is a huge help if I didn't scribble down the supporting quotes during my research phase. This is also, by the way, stricter than the fact checking process for most non-fiction publishing.
Now there's a testimonial. I look forward to browsing the source links with each video!