By Hiran de Silva
Listen to the discussion above. Save time!
Earlier today, prompted by a comment from Casper Badenhorst on a thread discussing plagiarism in the Excel community, I found myself reflecting on a deceptively simple question: Why do I use AI-generated voices rather than my own in videos?
Well, this is my voice. Right now. I’m speaking it into my phone as I walk away from my desk at the British Library. My actual phone—the one I use for work—is still on my desk. Hopefully not stolen (though with all the CCTV around here, you’d need to be dressed like Darth Vader to get away with it).
But back to Casper’s question. It’s a fair one, and it taps into a deeper issue: what matters more in our communication—our voice, face, and personality, or the substance of our ideas?
The Origin of a Rant
Let me explain how these rants begin. Something triggers a thought—maybe a post, an article, or just a sense of dissonance. Like Giles Male’s post about content theft, which inspired this train of thought. He was absolutely right to call out plagiarism—stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own is dishonest and unethical.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Many of the loudest voices in the Excel world, particularly on social media, are unknowingly plagiarizing ideas too—not just copying files or cheat sheets, but parroting shallow interpretations of complex subjects they don’t truly understand. And then selling courses on that basis.
That’s what rattles me. Because I believe we’ve ended up in an environment where the image of authority matters more than the depth of understanding.
From User Guides to Clickbait
I’m old enough to remember when Microsoft Office came with printed manuals—actual user guides. They were thoughtfully written, clearly laid out, and meant to explain not just what buttons to push, but why.
Then came online help systems. Then forums. Then blogs. And now we have social media videos—five-minute screen captures, flashy transitions, quick tips, and enthusiastic influencers telling you what to click, with little context as to why.
Don’t get me wrong, these formats are convenient and often entertaining. But they’ve come at a cost: the decline of thoughtful explanation. We’re not being taught how to think about problems. We’re just being shown where to click. It’s the Excel equivalent of learning to play music by watching someone press the piano keys—without ever learning how to read music or understand harmony.
This creates a dangerous gap: a knowledge gap. A thinking gap.
The Education Paradox
There’s a paradox at the heart of Excel education today: the more entertaining and likable someone is, the more influence they command—often regardless of the accuracy or depth of their content.
So, do we conflate likability with expertise?
Let me give you a historical parallel: Sir Isaac Newton. Genius mathematician. Father of gravity. Without him, we’d all be floating in the air. But reportedly, Newton was a nasty piece of work—abrasive, solitary, and arrogant. No one liked him. But his contributions shaped the modern world. Should we disregard gravity because Newton wasn’t charming?
On the flip side, consider some of the very charming figures in media and politics exposed posthumously as predators. We trusted them because they were likable. But that likability masked a lack of integrity.
So when it comes to Excel influencers—should we be following people because they’re charismatic? Or because they actually know what they’re talking about?
Enter: Excel.WTF
I’ve had a domain for years that I haven’t done anything with yet: Excel.WTF. Maybe it’s time. There’s so much confusion, contradiction, and charlatanism in this space that it deserves a proper airing. The goal wouldn’t be to shame people—but to raise the standard of discourse, and reintroduce thoughtful analysis into the Excel conversation.
Here’s the reality: I’ve been in accounting since the early 1980s. I trained with a firm that became Deloitte. I was Head of Finance at Penthouse UK in the ’80s, working directly with Richard Desmond—who became a billionaire, and has since retired to Dubai. I’ve built enterprise spreadsheet systems long before Power Query was a twinkle in Microsoft’s eye. And I continue to be stunned by how many qualified professionals today—yes, even those with Chartered Accountant status—do not understand how double-entry bookkeeping is implemented in digital systems. That should worry us.
What I’m Really Trying to Say
Casper, the question wasn’t really about AI voices. It was about authenticity.
Whether I speak with my own voice, or an AI-generated one, the ideas are still mine. The intention is the same: to challenge, to provoke thought, to highlight what’s missing in the dialogue.
And it all comes down to this: Is your content about you, or is it about the problem you’re trying to solve?
Social media increasingly rewards likability. But business problems are rarely solved by charm. They’re solved by insight, by analysis, by understanding how systems work and how to make them work better.
That’s what we should be aiming for in the Excel community.
Postscript: If you’ve made it this far, thank you. I’m off for a swim now, then back to the British Library to get some actual work done. But keep an eye on Excel.WTF—it may finally become a home for these thoughts, rants, and hopefully, some much-needed clarity.
Add comment