Depends. I think simply reading it would be infringement, you would have to add some substantive value. A good example is that youtubers will discuss wired reddit threads and events. Technically they do not own the copyright to any of the comments; however, it could be argued because they are doing voice overs + animation of the events how they see it, then it's a "derivative work" at that point.

In this case specific case though, i highly doubt that pg will take any action. The motive behind his work always seems to get the word out and not make a quick buck, by that logic then someone "infringing" on his essays is actually a net positive for him because more people will now read his work.

If you want to do it, just record one or two. Upload them as unlisted. Then reply to pg on Twitter, telling him, “Look, this is what I made. Is it cool with you if I continue, and may I make them public?”.

He has already given his okay to some GPT-3 based answer generator which was posted here a few months back.

"Annoying"—smart to ask. Infringement doesn't have any effects if the copyright holder takes no action. Holders sometimes even prefer their content to spread via "infringers", such as transcripts of commercials which are often re-performed in recordings by voice talent as samples of their work (demos). The client who paid the agency to write the script usually prefers more people hear about them. This is so common even SAG-Aftra, the union representing some voice talent, suggests (in writing) that it is fine to transcribe and re-record commercial scripts.

That would certainly be copyright infringement.