AI Matchmaking Apps: Do They Really Work?

Four testers recently explored the capabilities of AI matchmaking apps to determine if artificial intelligence could successfully end their single status. The experiment involved four specific platforms: Amata, Facebook Dating, Sitch, and Three Day Rule. Unlike traditional swiping interfaces, these apps utilize chatbot matchmakers to curate potential partners. Over several weeks, testers engaged in messaging bots, voting on profiles, and attempting to schedule dates.

The results highlighted a significant divide in performance. Amata and Sitch successfully facilitated actual dates, though Sitch required a significant financial investment of $90 for three set-ups. Conversely, Facebook Dating struggled with location relevance, and Three Day Rule failed to provide matches for one tester. A major takeaway was that despite the technological assistance, the fatigue associated with dating apps persists. The AI tools introduced new conveniences, such as automated date planning, but they did not eliminate the emotional labor or the 'work' of dating.

The introduction of artificial intelligence into the dating market has created a new category of apps focused on intentionality. Startups like Sitch and Amata have raised millions of dollars to build platforms where users are paired with an AI matchmaker rather than swiping manually. These apps aim to reduce the volume of low-quality interactions common on larger platforms. Facebook Dating, a giant with approximately 21 million users, has also recently integrated AI tools into its service.

The core philosophy behind these apps is to move away from ego-driven swiping. Ludovic Huraux, the founder of Amata, emphasized a specific goal regarding user intent. He stated, "We don't want people who are not emotionally available, who are on dating apps just for their ego boost." The apps promise to slow down the process and take over the tedious tasks of filtering and planning, theoretically reducing the burnout felt by users of apps like Hinge and Tinder.

Testers reported varied success rates across the four platforms. One user managed to secure drinks with a match from Amata, noting that the app successfully planned the date. However, the same user found Sitch offered many profiles but resulted in no matches, while Three Day Rule provided no matches at all. Facebook Dating was criticized for recommending users who lived too far away to be practical.

Another tester had a similar experience with Three Day Rule, receiving profiles but no dates. However, they did go on dates from both Sitch and Amata. The Sitch experience required a payment of $90 for three "set-ups," while Amata required a $25 commitment fee to confirm a date. These financial barriers are part of the apps' business models, distinguishing them from free swiping apps.

These apps utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) to interact with users. Instead of writing a bio, users answer personal questions asked by the chatbot, which then generates a profile. This removes the burden of writing prompts but raises questions about how accurately the AI represents the user.

Amata stands out by assigning a human avatar to its AI matchmaker, creating an illusion of a personal assistant. The app plans the date, makes reservations, and restricts messaging to two hours before the meeting. This feature was praised for eliminating the anxiety of "witty responses." However, the AI can be strict; one user received a warning for missing a date window, with the bot threatening to pause matches for seven days to avoid disappointing potential partners.

Facebook Dating offers an AI assistant that allows users to search for specific traits, such as "guy who lives in Park Slope, makes over $100k." However, testers found that the actual matches did not align with these specific searches, rendering the feature less useful than intended.

Despite the innovation, the experiment revealed that AI matchmakers do not fully solve dating app fatigue. Testers noted that while the apps slowed down the swiping process, they added a new layer of tasks, such as checking a chatbot daily. The core issue of dating being "work" remained unresolved. As one tester noted, "AI can't fix me."

However, there were distinct advantages. The automation of date planning removed the friction of scheduling. Meeting in person was streamlined, though it sometimes led to awkward moments, such as checking into a bar by announcing a reservation made by an app. Ultimately, while AI can successfully curate introductions and handle logistics, it cannot force a connection or eliminate the emotional effort required to sustain a relationship.