We've had formant synths for several decades, and they're perfectly understandable and require a tiny amount of computing power, but people tend not to want to listen to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Automatic_Mouth
https://simulationcorner.net/index.php?page=sam (try it yourself to hear what it sounds like)
DECtalk[1,2] would be a much better example, that's as formant as you get.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECtalk [2] https://webspeak.terminal.ink
Other than the video, the only relevant content is on the about page [2]. It says the voice is a collaboration between 5 different entities, including advocacy groups, marketing firms and a music producer.
The video is the only example of the voice in use. There is no API, weights, SDK, etc.
I suspect this was a one-off marketing stunt sponsored by Copenhagen pride before the pandemic. The initial reaction was strong enough that a couple years they were still getting a small but steady flow of traffic. One of the involved marketing firms decided to monetize the asset and defaced it with blog spam.
It’s a good choice for a robot voice. It’s easier to understand than the formant synths or deliberately distorted human voices. The genderless aspect is alien enough to avoid the uncanny valley. You intuitively know you’re dealing with something a little different.
I agree with your wider point. I use Google TTS with Moon+Reader all the time (I tried audio books read by real humans but I prefer the consistency of TTS)
Well sure, the BBC have already established that it's supposed to sound like a brit doing an impersonation of an American: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_SAuQDec