The problem is coordination. Suppose that the AI gave you the perfect matching algorithm. But still, you have no users to apply this algorithm to, so you can’t prove that it works.
The existing dating websites do not have a reason to change—their current websites generate profit. You need to make your own website.
Okay, so now you have a website with a potentially perfect algorithm, but zero users. You start advertising. The first few users come, but get a poor match, because there is little to choose from. So they leave.
Someone like Facebook would be in a better position to do this, because they already have tons of users, and can advertise to all of them at the same time for free. So they could add it as an extra functionality to Facebook, and feed the algorithm the data about the users they already have. You would just have to consent to receiving dating suggestions. Also, Facebook would have less of a problem with fake profiles. (There are many, but not as many—as a fraction of total accounts—as there would be on a dating websites. Also, most fake accounts on Facebook are for marketing or politics, so they wouldn’t be interested in dating.)
Not sure about the incentives, though. Maybe people who are happily in love, spend less time scrolling Facebook endlessly? Then Facebook would kill the goose that lays them golden eggs.
The existing dating websites do not have a reason to change—their current websites generate profit.
Existing dating apps (presumably) make a profit now, but they could be making more profit if they were better, through a combination of pulling market share from their competitors, and bringing more people into the dating app scene (if dating apps had less of a reputation for being dystopian hellscapes).
There could be disincentives if they were too good at it (instantly pairing up all of their users into perfect marriages so the dating market dries up), but if they were really that good they could just charge a lot and front-load their profits, and they’d still be incentivized to do it before their competitors do.
How would a prospective user tell which dating site offer is genuine and which are just scams that also are charging a lot?
It’s not like anyone, even the bonafide sites, could provide hard evidence of successful long term relationships, since that would be a huge privacy issue.
Users would find out about apps the same way they do now: Hearing about the apps from friends and/or media. If one dating app was much better than the others, people would hear about it from their friends, and people who don’t have friends in the dating pool would hear about it from the media.
I also don’t think it’s a privacy issue to provide aggregate data about this. A dating app could run surveys asking people if they’re still dating a person they met on the app. The harder part would be getting people to actually answer, but there’s incentives you could try (like take a deposit and refund it if the person answers the survey), and if your app is actually life-changingly good it will be easier to convince users to take 5 minutes to help you out.
These are tiny issues you are mentioning. The hardest thing to make is the AI.
If you have the algorithm for “perfect” matchmaking. You can just advertise the hell out of it, put a limit for the minimum number of users for the platform to work (100K?) and once that’s reached activate it, match people, everyone is ecstatic to meet the love of their life there → more publicity → more people sign up → success.
I think people would be willing to pay a LOT of money, for “perfect” matches.
Just because a match is perfect does not mean that people end up in a relationship. The dating process is still there and needed to actually get people to fall in love.
I don’t think it’s the most critical step for most people. Actually, going through the mating dance in a way that leads to feelings seems to me often more critical.
I think we might be valuing the importance of each step based on personal experience. But maybe they’re both equally important. ex. What’s more important for a cake, buying the ingredients or cooking it?
The problem is coordination. Suppose that the AI gave you the perfect matching algorithm. But still, you have no users to apply this algorithm to, so you can’t prove that it works.
The existing dating websites do not have a reason to change—their current websites generate profit. You need to make your own website.
Okay, so now you have a website with a potentially perfect algorithm, but zero users. You start advertising. The first few users come, but get a poor match, because there is little to choose from. So they leave.
Someone like Facebook would be in a better position to do this, because they already have tons of users, and can advertise to all of them at the same time for free. So they could add it as an extra functionality to Facebook, and feed the algorithm the data about the users they already have. You would just have to consent to receiving dating suggestions. Also, Facebook would have less of a problem with fake profiles. (There are many, but not as many—as a fraction of total accounts—as there would be on a dating websites. Also, most fake accounts on Facebook are for marketing or politics, so they wouldn’t be interested in dating.)
Not sure about the incentives, though. Maybe people who are happily in love, spend less time scrolling Facebook endlessly? Then Facebook would kill the goose that lays them golden eggs.
Facebook has a dating service. It has a huge fake profile problem that essentially makes it unusable.
Facebook’s inability to effectively handle fake profiles is always remarkable.
Existing dating apps (presumably) make a profit now, but they could be making more profit if they were better, through a combination of pulling market share from their competitors, and bringing more people into the dating app scene (if dating apps had less of a reputation for being dystopian hellscapes).
There could be disincentives if they were too good at it (instantly pairing up all of their users into perfect marriages so the dating market dries up), but if they were really that good they could just charge a lot and front-load their profits, and they’d still be incentivized to do it before their competitors do.
How would a prospective user tell which dating site offer is genuine and which are just scams that also are charging a lot?
It’s not like anyone, even the bonafide sites, could provide hard evidence of successful long term relationships, since that would be a huge privacy issue.
Users would find out about apps the same way they do now: Hearing about the apps from friends and/or media. If one dating app was much better than the others, people would hear about it from their friends, and people who don’t have friends in the dating pool would hear about it from the media.
I also don’t think it’s a privacy issue to provide aggregate data about this. A dating app could run surveys asking people if they’re still dating a person they met on the app. The harder part would be getting people to actually answer, but there’s incentives you could try (like take a deposit and refund it if the person answers the survey), and if your app is actually life-changingly good it will be easier to convince users to take 5 minutes to help you out.
Epistemic status: heard in Internet comments
There is another coordination-like problem when women think that saying that they’re looking for dates is weird/low-status.
These are tiny issues you are mentioning. The hardest thing to make is the AI.
If you have the algorithm for “perfect” matchmaking. You can just advertise the hell out of it, put a limit for the minimum number of users for the platform to work (100K?) and once that’s reached activate it, match people, everyone is ecstatic to meet the love of their life there → more publicity → more people sign up → success.
I think people would be willing to pay a LOT of money, for “perfect” matches.
Just because a match is perfect does not mean that people end up in a relationship. The dating process is still there and needed to actually get people to fall in love.
What is your point?
Of course you will have to go through the rest of process, but you just solved the most critical step.
I don’t think it’s the most critical step for most people. Actually, going through the mating dance in a way that leads to feelings seems to me often more critical.
I think we might be valuing the importance of each step based on personal experience. But maybe they’re both equally important. ex. What’s more important for a cake, buying the ingredients or cooking it?
How can one improve the “mating dance” ?
The fact that arranged marriages out of pretty small polls of candidates can produce good marriages suggests that the match is not that central.
There’s a lot that has been written on dating.