Flaw in "everyone should have an audiobook even if it's AI" logic?

I know @Thomas Umstattd Jr. is a big proponent of using AI to create an audiobook if the author can’t afford a human narrator. I’ve no problem with using AI to create an audiobook and have toyed with the idea—though I suspect my readers have stronger anti-AI opinions and, for some of them, no audiobook is better than an AI audiobook.

But I was thinking through the “there is no excuse to not have an audiobook” logic and realized something. One of the bonus reasons presented for creating an AI audiobook (instead of not having one at all) is that having an audiobook proves you aren’t AI.

However. The readers who are actively trying to make sure they aren’t reading AI books simply because they’re AI are likely also the readers who won’t read an author because they used AI for an audiobook. So, while it proves a bot isn’t writing/uploading the book, it also “proves” AI use which is what that particular reader is against in the first place.

Also, I’m pretty sure we can’t sell AI audiobooks on Amazon (or at least on Audible, unless you use their virtual voice option) atm? So the majority of readers wouldn’t even see the AI audiobook option.

Basically, instead of it being “AI audiobooks make sense financially and prove you aren’t AI to the people who care about that” it might actually be more of a “AI audiobooks make sense financially but will likely push away people who care about the AI side of things”

I’m curious about your thoughts and if I’m missing something here? I might be, and I do think there can be good reasons to create an AI audiobook. I just wonder if the message it sends to people trying to avoid AI books might be a negative one (they used AI!) instead of a positive one (a human must be behind this because AI doesn’t create audiobooks…also, would this sort of reader know this, or would they be more likely to assume the book was AI-written because they can now see the author used it to some degree?).