One way to look at it is by understanding that nowadays, we can recognize several extreme categories of content creators, and then understand that each actual creator is likely some mix of these.
(1) People who just like to show and share what they do (or are attempting to do), mostly getting their satisfactions out of recognition and positive feedback from the audience. Very often this is unreliable content by inexperienced but overly confident makers. Every once in a while, amazing and skilled artists just go ahead and share their insights and techniques. Lyle Sopel, for example.
(2) Those who are creating content that promotes what they may be selling - equipment, rough materials, magazine subscriptions, or classes. In my experience, some of the most educational, curated content currently available falls into this category (Highland Park videos, Gem-A lecture series, William Holland School, L'ÉCOLE School of Jewelry Arts).
(3) People (and, it's already happening, content-creating algorithms) who create content simply to attract viewers so they monetize the engagement through the YouTube advertising system. This is the worst - photoshoped thumbnails designed to catch and mislead attention, paying robot farms to boost view counts, "you won't believe what I found inside this rock!!!" etc. Low-effort content at best.
(4) Disingenuous rockhounds who create "reviews" and other such content promoting other businesses (equipment vendors, fee-dig mining sites) in exchange for kickback payments or freebies, without making these backroom deals clear to the unsuspecting audience.