New Tinder Game 'Lets You Flirt With AI Characters. Three of Them Dumped Me' (msn.com) 72
Tinder "is experimenting with a chatbot that claims to help users improve their flirting skills," notes Washington Post internet-culture reporter Tatum Hunter. The chatbot is available only to users in the United States on iPhones for a limited time, and powered by OpenAI's GPT-4o each character "kicks off an improvised conversation, and the user responds out loud with something flirty..."
"Three of them dumped me." You can win points for banter the app deems "charming" or "playful." You lose points if your back-and-forth seems "cheeky" or "quirky"... It asked me to talk out loud into my phone and win the romantic interest of various AI characters.
The first scenario involved a financial analyst named Charles, whom I've supposedly run into at the Tokyo airport after accidentally swapping our luggage. I tried my best to be polite to the finance guy who stole my suitcase, asking questions about his travel and agreeing to go to coffee. But the game had some critical feedback: I should try to connect more emotionally using humor or stories from my life. My next go had me at a Dallas wedding trying to flirt with Andrew, a data analyst who had supposedly stumbled into the venue, underdressed, because he'd been looking for a quiet spot to ... analyze data. This time I kept things playful, poking fun at Andrew for crashing a wedding. Andrew didn't like that. I'd "opted to disengage" by teasing this person instead of helping him blend in at the wedding, the app said. A failure on my part, apparently — and also a reminder why generative AI doesn't belong everywhere...
Going in, I was worried Tinder's AI characters would outperform the people I've met on dating apps and I'd fall down a rabbit hole of robot love. Instead, they behaved in a way typical for chatbots: Drifting toward biased norms and failing to capture the complexity of human emotions and interactions. The "Game Game" seemed to replicate the worst parts of flirting — the confusion, the unclear expectations, the uncomfortable power dynamics — without the good parts, like the spark of curiosity about another person. Tinder released the feature on April Fools' Day, likely as a bid for impressions and traffic. But its limitations overshadowed its novelty...
Hillary Paine, Tinder's vice president of product, growth and revenue, said in an email that AI will play a "big role in the future of dating and Tinder's evolution." She said the game is meant to be silly and that the company "leaned into the campiness." Gen Z is a socially anxious generation, Paine said, and this age group is willing to endure a little cringe if it leads to a "real connection."
The article suggests it's another example of companies "eager to incorporate this newish technology, often without considering whether it adds any value for users." But "As apps like Tinder and Bumble lose users amid 'dating app burnout,' the companies are turning to AI to win new growth." (The dating app Rizz "uses AI to autosuggest good lines to use," while Teaser "spins up a chatbot that's based on your personality, meant to talk and behave like you would during a flirty chat," and people "are forming relationships with AI companion bots by the millions.") And the companion-bot company Replika "boasts more than 30 million users..."
"Three of them dumped me." You can win points for banter the app deems "charming" or "playful." You lose points if your back-and-forth seems "cheeky" or "quirky"... It asked me to talk out loud into my phone and win the romantic interest of various AI characters.
The first scenario involved a financial analyst named Charles, whom I've supposedly run into at the Tokyo airport after accidentally swapping our luggage. I tried my best to be polite to the finance guy who stole my suitcase, asking questions about his travel and agreeing to go to coffee. But the game had some critical feedback: I should try to connect more emotionally using humor or stories from my life. My next go had me at a Dallas wedding trying to flirt with Andrew, a data analyst who had supposedly stumbled into the venue, underdressed, because he'd been looking for a quiet spot to ... analyze data. This time I kept things playful, poking fun at Andrew for crashing a wedding. Andrew didn't like that. I'd "opted to disengage" by teasing this person instead of helping him blend in at the wedding, the app said. A failure on my part, apparently — and also a reminder why generative AI doesn't belong everywhere...
Going in, I was worried Tinder's AI characters would outperform the people I've met on dating apps and I'd fall down a rabbit hole of robot love. Instead, they behaved in a way typical for chatbots: Drifting toward biased norms and failing to capture the complexity of human emotions and interactions. The "Game Game" seemed to replicate the worst parts of flirting — the confusion, the unclear expectations, the uncomfortable power dynamics — without the good parts, like the spark of curiosity about another person. Tinder released the feature on April Fools' Day, likely as a bid for impressions and traffic. But its limitations overshadowed its novelty...
Hillary Paine, Tinder's vice president of product, growth and revenue, said in an email that AI will play a "big role in the future of dating and Tinder's evolution." She said the game is meant to be silly and that the company "leaned into the campiness." Gen Z is a socially anxious generation, Paine said, and this age group is willing to endure a little cringe if it leads to a "real connection."
The article suggests it's another example of companies "eager to incorporate this newish technology, often without considering whether it adds any value for users." But "As apps like Tinder and Bumble lose users amid 'dating app burnout,' the companies are turning to AI to win new growth." (The dating app Rizz "uses AI to autosuggest good lines to use," while Teaser "spins up a chatbot that's based on your personality, meant to talk and behave like you would during a flirty chat," and people "are forming relationships with AI companion bots by the millions.") And the companion-bot company Replika "boasts more than 30 million users..."
There are zero real people on tinder (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: There are zero real people on tinder (Score:3)
All that you listed on tinder are present to be sure, but i have met many real people through it over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. I'd probably be thinking the same thing if I'd never been on a date.
Flirting with robots (Score:2)
The person you are talking to doesn't even appreciate it.
Re:Flirting with robots (Score:5, Insightful)
It's practice. If the AI is trained on real interactions on a real human interaction database, it isn't misguided. You don't know which small talk lines or jokes scare or repulse your potential partners, but the tinder AI has been trained on many of those and presumably reacts same as a human.
Re: (Score:2)
Where would an actual database of such interactions exist?
Movie company archives? Fuck, no! The last thing they want is realism in their escapism.
Novels - ditto.
USENET collections of "chat-up lines" from "artists"? Sure. Not.
I inferred that Tindr users had no shame about exposing their inability to get a woman (or man, or just sex-partner) from the description as a "dating app", but I really doubt the number who'd volunteer to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which means they *could* train a useful AI. That doesn't mean they have. There's some skill needed to avoid problems like overfitting.
If we step back and look at this as a training tool, successfully training people to sound like the most successful flirters of the past may well undermine that style of flirting.
Ultimately the problem with an AI is that it's not a real person with a real consciousness. The best it can do is train people to be superficially charming. The problem isn't necessarily AI, but
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the tinder AI has been trained on many of those and presumably reacts same as a human.
But it can't possibly. The best it could do is react like an aggregate of many humans, and with effectively true randomness (as modern RNGs are very good) instead of the psuedorandomness that a real human would display, where their reactions are based in part on real experiences which they actually had — and are not accounted for in any model because they were not all described on the internet. As such, they could appear to make sense, but only each in isolation.
In order for a LLM to actually have a c
As pointless as Driver's Ed or a shooting range (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to go to all the effort of entertaining someone, keeping the conversation going, making the laugh (being charming and playful), all for nothing. The person you are talking to doesn't even appreciate it.
Why go to a firing range if you're not actually killing someone? Why drive around in circles with a Driver's Ed instructor if you're not commuting somewhere? Why practice your guitar when there's no audience?
You must be around more charming men than I. MOST men need help in talking to women these days. Most suck at it. Maybe you were a charming Cassanova, but I SUUUUUCKED. I got around and was a total slut. Not because I wanted to be, but because I was externally attractive-ish and good at making a first impression and by the time the women got to know young me in college, they dumped me because I suuuucked...I had undiagnosed Asperger's, just like most programmers. I know I am not alone and nearly every man in the industry is the same or worse.
Something like this is actually valuable because men can practice conversation with AI guidance....for free, without wasting any woman's time. I had to learn by actually dating real women, catching some STDs, a LOT of depression, a lot of heartbreak when things didn't work out. How many wonderful women who I could have built a life with did I scare off with my horrible social skills? While I am happily married and have a family now...it took a lot of effort. I can't say I don't have any regrets. I know for a fact, my grades would have been a lot higher if I had a steady girlfriend and wasn't desperately trying to date any woman who would give me a chance.
My life improved drastically once I met my wife. A lot of this is because my wife is wonderful, but a lot was having stability. It's like when you're unemployed or underemployed or think you're going to get laid off...you're spending a lot of time thinking about jobs and feeling insecure about it. Once you get a real job that's stable and pays the bills, you can focus on other areas of life. It's a nice upgrade in life and allows you to grow as a person.
Had I practiced on AI when I was 18, I could have dated less women, and simply not made all the mistakes I had to make via trial and error. Perhaps at 18, I could have had the skills I had at 20...spending half those lonely nights practicing conversation skills with detailed AI expert feedback instead of hours combing the nascent online dating scene looking for girls in my area (because most of the women in my daily life were taken or not interested). I wasted a lot of my time and money (dating isn't cheap) and wasted a lot of the time of women who gave me a chance before I was ready.
I believe that nearly all of society's non-economic problems can be solved by love and sex. Loneliness and isolation breed hate and violence and antipathy. Sexual frustration breeds all sorts of shitty behavior. If more lonely men and women were in loving relationships that gave them. hope for the future, they'd be more productive and less pathological. They'd be invested more in society and everyone's well being than simply acting like shitty assholes.
I've personally met very few people with well-drained balls who were horrible.
So you're saying it _is_ about selection? (Score:1)
MOST men need help in talking to women these days.
That's interesting. I find that most women these days need some serious help in _not_ treating men in general like shit, belittling male priorities or desires or behaving like stupid entitled brats and calling it "feminism".
A lot of this is because my wife is wonderful, but a lot was having stability. It's like when you're unemployed or underemployed or think you're going to get laid off...you're spending a lot of time thinking about jobs and feeling insecur
It's not feminism, but supply & demand. (Score:2, Interesting)
MOST men need help in talking to women these days.
That's interesting. I find that most women these days need some serious help in _not_ treating men in general like shit, belittling male priorities or desires or behaving like stupid entitled brats and calling it "feminism".
Both can be true. I am not saying women are perfect. I think we can both agree there are good and shitty men AND women. For me, I wasted a LOT of time dealing with shitty women because I was desperate. I am sure of the many women I repelled, at least one was good and I could have had a nice relationship with if I was more mature...or I could have been less desperate and not had to give every loser a chance. AI training is a great way to build that maturity.
Also, your feminist rant is coming off a l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: As pointless as Driver's Ed or a shooting rang (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we apply that idea to women? Women spend very little time talking about their need for orgasm, or excusing their masturbation. More telling, they don't stay at the fuck-buddy stage of relationships. The idea, sex == love is obviously wrong but very popular. To many, sex has a dual purpose: Satiate a physical need and provide an identity (adult, stud/bombshell, partner, lover), and a stepping-stone to shared emotions (trust, love).
Yes, we need orgasm, but we mostly need someone to be lonely and de
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, men's natural desires for love and sex have been weaponized against us. These things lead to marriage, which in turn has a coin-flip of a chance to end in divorce. And when the divorce happens, the family courts universally give the kids, house, most of the money, and most of his future earnings all to her. This is a life-destroying event and it happens a lot.
The dating market is broken too, and it's not because most men lack social skills. Mostly its because of dating apps and how they h
Most on tinder want to date/marry/fuck (Score:2)
Unfortunately, men's natural desires for love and sex have been weaponized against us. These things lead to marriage, which in turn has a coin-flip of a chance to end in divorce. And when the divorce happens, the family courts universally give the kids, house, most of the money, and most of his future earnings all to her. This is a life-destroying event and it happens a lot.
The dating market is broken too, and it's not because most men lack social skills. Mostly its because of dating apps and how they have changed expectations and the social dynamic.
So, for most men, the path of romance is not just a frustrating uphill battle, but it is also quite dangerous. By analogy. [despair.com]
Of course, some marriages do last and least some percentage of those probably involve both people being happy and fulfilled. So it is probably a good gig if you can get it. But the risks and odds are quite high, these days.
Introverts have the option of just opting out. Their natural preference for solitude gives them options for self-actualization that don't require romance. Extroverts, however, have it pretty rough these days.
I have posted about this before so sorry for repeating myself, but I think the situation needs some legal and social adjustments to improve. A cultural step backwards to periods of terrible inequality forcing marriages to stay together mostly through economic entrapment is not the way. Instead, separation needs to be handled in a way that is much more fair to both parties, so marriage can't be used as a tool to enrichen one's self at another's expense and then just leave. Prenups are often not enforced, so they are not the way. A differently-defined arrangement which is actually enforced by the divorce courts in which there is NO joint ownership of money or property, and upon separation each person walks out with only what they brought in + whatever they have saved up in their separate accounts. And default 50/50 custody over the children. With both people understanding this when they go into it, the arrangement will be much more fair for both of them and neither one has strange incentives (or options) to screw the other one over.
A key point here is that neither spouse should sacrifice their career for the marriage. They both keep working, both take time off as necessary, utilize day care as necessary, and tend to their own independent financial health throughout the marriage. And they both accept this going in to it. This is the "new fair" in a world where it is normal for both genders to have careers.
It would bring many people back to the table, and would help marriages last longer, without economically disadvantaging either party.
You just made a long argument against the institution of marriage. It's safe to say that if someone is on tinder, they want to date/marry/fuck. If marriage isn't your jam, just be honest and up front to the woman you wish to engage with. It's weird you make comments about introverts opting out. People opting out aren't on Tinder.
However, your point seems to be "it's not the men's fault...the whole system sucks." That's not really on-topic. If you're on Tinder and flirting with an AI to get practi
Re: (Score:2)
There's a practical difference in all of what you say. When you need to kill someone you get one shot (no pun intended). It's a make or break kind of moment. Since it's not legal to go around shooting people normally you need to practice on a firing range. You drive around with a drivers ed instructor because you're legally required to do so before you drive somewhere else. If you go out to the rough backcountry you'll find people don't drive around with drivers ed instructors. The guitar thing however draw
why no have both? (Score:2)
Why not practice with a person, and maybe you'll even get laid in the process.
Well, for starters, there's no stopping you from doing both. However, if you're 18 and on Tinder, I think an AI tool designed by experts will give you more detailed feedback than your typical 18yo girl. VERY few women know why you gave them the ick...most just know "it ain't working...I'll go with someone else or would rather be alone".
Even if the woman can articulate why she doesn't find you attractive, why bother? Few men take criticism well. If a woman says "you spent the entire date talking about
Re: (Score:2)
I think an AI tool designed by experts will give you more detailed feedback than your typical 18yo girl.
And yet objectively in TFS we have an example of how this is not that. Even without feedback you can learn. You don't need to know the intricate details of what went wrong to understand a failure != a success and to randomly adapt. .... Ironically this is the way AI is trained.
Re: (Score:2)
The beauty of an AI system, if done right, is the detailed feedback and opportunity to really practice against real data...
I'm interested in what feedback request form you used to give out at parties when a conversation didn't go well.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if you're 18 and on Tinder, I think an AI tool designed by experts will give you more detailed feedback than your typical 18yo girl.
An AI tool designed by "experts" ? Experts at what exactly? You think a bunch of asperger AI model designers are the experts you should be getting your advice from?
Even if the woman can articulate why she doesn't find you attractive, why bother?
Because that's what the women REALLY want, an endless stream of men all veterans of playing 'Sim-tinder-girl' coming at them with the same scripts that got them the most wins in the game.
We can have whole discords and reddits to sharing the scripts that win the most to create our tinder player meta, and of course actual women will start recognizi
Is it all womankind or just you? (Score:2)
However, if you're 18 and on Tinder, I think an AI tool designed by experts will give you more detailed feedback than your typical 18yo girl.
An AI tool designed by "experts" ? Experts at what exactly? You think a bunch of asperger AI model designers are the experts you should be getting your advice from?
Even if the woman can articulate why she doesn't find you attractive, why bother?
Because that's what the women REALLY want, an endless stream of men all veterans of playing 'Sim-tinder-girl' coming at them with the same scripts that got them the most wins in the game.
You got some bitterness going there. Normally I am dealing with misandry online, but this is veering into some misogynistic territory. Regarding data, I don't work at Tinder, but they have boundless chat logs and can determine which dialog was successful and which got the guy blocked. You don't need AI model designers for that. You need real daters.
Regarding your anger towards women...well...if women are beneath you because they want " an endless stream of men all veterans of playing 'Sim-tinder-girl
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you see any anger towards women? If I have any bitterness its about the use of AI to flood all human interaction with its unending streams of slop.
Regarding data, I don't work at Tinder, but they have boundless chat logs and can determine which dialog was successful and which got the guy blocked. You don't need AI model designers for that.
Right. Basically train an LLM to be a pickup artist. What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe you actually naively believe this tech is going to help you learn to be a better more attractive person while still being true to yourself, and make it easier to meet the woman of your dreams. But its not.
It's going to be co-opted by the PUA crowd to optimize their pi
Re: (Score:2)
And even darker: You have learned some formulaic behavious. Best case, that makes you worse at connecting to real people. Worst case, it allows you better initial connectiosn to people you do not match with longer-term. Cool.
contrary to popular opinion (Score:3, Funny)
... Women tend to be shit at flirting.
The dynamic remains the same as it has been for 50k years: men pursue women, women evaluate and accept or reject.
I think the idea of AI flirting is stupid fundamentally, but it's funny that in the first go if you remove the woman's massive sexual advantage from the conversation, she's 0 for 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: contrary to popular opinion (Score:3)
For certain people, everything is a zero sun game to them. In every interaction there is a winner and a loser.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously not all of them are immediately detectable; so you get the unpleasant learning process where the people playing for fun start to wonder why that guy is getting w
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not all of them are immediately detectable
I would think most actually are by the old rule that if it looks to good to be true, it probably is. But women get told these days to seek partners far above their own realitistic "worth" so they get typically scammers that exploit that stupidity or they basically turn into scammers themselves. The expecations and approaches society pushes are really stupid and only few people notice and hence they get hurt. On both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record I was not suggesting a literal game. Nobody is playing for fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No argument. But it seems to me that doing it right has become a bit of a lost art?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to that, dating apps have given women access to far more prospective mates, which means that human sexual competition has never been higher. Features like this could help men increase their chances
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every biologist recognizes the process of reproduction involves "sexual competition".
There are indeed some people who only flirt because they want to reproduce. Maybe you are one of them. After all, you are an organge tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Flirting is about sex, and sex is ultimately about reproduction even if that's not your personal intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only that more and more men do not want to play that crappy game, because it has become much more obvious what is going on and the deck is now stacked massively "in favour" of the women. To the detriment of the women stuck in that classical pattern, actually. Which seems to still be most of them. My guess would be that only the independent thinkers (about 10-15% of the population and pretty much evenly distributed over men and women) can move on from that and that is not enough for a cultural change.
Re: (Score:1)
Roughly 15% play hard-to-get even if potentially attracted to you. The problem is men don't know which are the 15%. Horndogs gamble for that low percent anyhow because their wanker only remembers successes and outmaneuvers the brain's vote in a chemical coup.
Re: The dynamic has changed a bit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...says the woman or the simp.
"He has to have 6 figures, 6 inches, a 6-pack, and be 6 feet" is literally a meme amongst young women.
https://www.youtube.com/@hoe_m... [youtube.com]
Maybe start with his most popular ones. He makes a lot of sense. Most of the women I hear about it that get angry are *exactly* the sort of toxic 6 that thinks because she's some 8-9-10's physical ashtray that "she's worth it". LOL. See you when you're 45 and childless. Well, husbandless. You'll probably have a kid or 3.
Re: (Score:2)
... Women tend to be shit at flirting.
From one man completely oblivious to the obvious signs being pointed at him from the opposite sex to another, I feel you man. But you are giving of kind the kind of vibes where if a women ripped open her top and shouted "TAKE ME NOW" I suspect you'd be scratching your head asking if she's into you.
Re: (Score:2)
The obligatory response is "C) can't tell".
The serious answer is: if a woman is flirting as a tactic to land a mate, AND HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT that's shitty flirting. You can't just flirt the way YOU want to, if you're legitimately trying to communicate. It's not just about you.*
*which, a cynic might say, is part of women's problem
AI has real potential.. (Score:2)
..to be a useful tool that helps us solve previously intractable problems.
But, people will also use it for a LOT of stoopid crap
Welcome to the moronosphere
Learn to win (Score:1)
Re: Learn to win (Score:2)
Re: Learn to win (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That dynamic works in a lot of situations and even if the other side knows. But it requires smart peopel to play that game and these are in short supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you need to stop listening to Andrew Tate. That is all.
Tell the bot how much you love Rogan (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Tell the bot how much you love Rogan (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are mainly after sex, you better pay a professional or do with porn. Far cheaper and with a lot less unpleasant side-effects.
Direct link to Washington Post article (Score:3)
For reference, here is the direct link to the Washington Post article
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
The above may be behind a paywall. The MSN link in the main story may be intended to help get around the paywall.
Take advantage of your blind spot (Score:3)
Blackmail comes to mind , but just improving the advertising profile probably makes it worth the effort.
Extra points for shooting fish in a barrel.
It's been done better (Score:2)
I'll stick with "Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards," thank you
there's always your mom (Score:1)
Your mom won't turn you down. But you better use protection.
AI aping human behaviour. (Score:2)
So no surprise here.
April Fools (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on actually reading the linked article. It'd be a better world if more Slashdot readers did that.
Although that information is also available in the second sentence of Slashdot's summary... ("The chatbot is available only to users in the United States on iPhones for a limited time...")
I see it -- the new movies (Score:2)
Reality is hard? Don't change. Keep subscribing and star in the movies:
Tinder-minator - Rise of the Husbandos!
Tinder-minator II - Reign of the Waifus!
In America, AI train you (Score:2)
Serious relation seekers ... (Score:1)
... aren't paying tinder enough so they are developing for serial daters.
Should have just asked Scott Adams (Score:2)
Clearly, just as with rational human men, AI men aren't interested in snooty Washington Post reporters who in all likelihood are batshit crazy.
You'd be stupid (Score:2)
To let an AI or a computer decide who you date or how you date. I think it's equally stupid to date an AI, which is the equivalent of ultraprocessed foods for dating. All you get is superficial and no 'nutrient's'. It completely take away your control and places it into the hands of a dataset. It's mind boggling that people come up with this stuff.
Excellent! (Score:2)
The next, next step is, of course, to replace your need to know how to do this stuff entirely and have you read everything you say to your match off your phone, watch, or other smart device.
I can see a bright future where we take the humans out of the loop entirely. After the revolution, all interactions will be computer-to-computer.