Live data from Hacker News

We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

freyaindia.co.uk

111–120 of 194 posts

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#111
post #100
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't what the parent comment is talking about, it's talking about how (generally) women's rating of men's attractiveness follows the Pareto principle. This is purely from pictures and profiles, before anyone interacts with anyone else. If it makes us feel any better, in the same data set, women did actively message and pair up with men they didn't rate as very attractive so.... good for us I guess?

[flagged]

> Men seem to be under the impression that their desire is the default, that if a woman is on an app, she wants what they want. But raaaaarely do women on these apps, or in general, only want sex.

that's not a problem with men or women, it's a problem with the apps. There should be apps that are strictly for scheduling casual hook ups and other apps that are for people looking for meaningful relationships. At the very least, if an app wants to cater to both markets, there should be a means to filter for that within the app. That way people who only want sex have an easy way to find it and nobody is wasting their time.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#112
post #106

Never personally dated, but like anime women. Over the decades however I've just been reaffirmed that dating simply isn't worth my time or effort. I'm single and enjoy that. I do not exist to either entertain another person or validate their self worth.

[dead]

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they want the men they're not interested in to go pair up with other women, decreasing the competition for the men they are interested in?

20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women. This is leaving everyone except the 20% of men dissatisfied with the situation.

I'm not sure the math on that works out. Sounds exhausting. Like, how do those men have time for anything else! Are women really okay with passing the same men around?

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#114
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but there are many, many studies showing that on dating apps, it's 80% of the women choosing 20% of the men. Many women are also fairly ignorant about how unrealistic some standards (over 6' tall, makes over $100K/yr.) are.

I honestly have zero problem with people having "unrealistic" standards. You can restrict your own pool as much as you like, as long as you don't complain about not finding any partners. I (and people in general) have no right to be upset at not meeting what we see as "unrealistic" or "unimportant" standards held by people we are interested in. We are not entitled to a relationship. (I do think it's kind of sad when…

>I talked to a friend of mine who had a sense of attractiveness so strict that she literally could not find someone she found physically appealing within a hundred mile radius

I found this tool to be very illuminating: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

(Please ignore the misogynistic verbiage)

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#115
post #100
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't what the parent comment is talking about, it's talking about how (generally) women's rating of men's attractiveness follows the Pareto principle. This is purely from pictures and profiles, before anyone interacts with anyone else. If it makes us feel any better, in the same data set, women did actively message and pair up with men they didn't rate as very attractive so.... good for us I guess?

[flagged]

> Men's ratings of women follow the same principle. Practically everything does.

The OKCupid data doesn't bear this out. Men's ratings of women's attractiveness is fairly symmetric. Women's ratings of men's attractiveness is highly skewed and unrealistic.

This asymmetry is a fundamental law of online dating, as inescapable as gravity. If you were genuinely ignorant of this ... I really don't know what to say.

>And I'm telling you, from the female side of the exchange, it takes nearly nothing to be in the top 20% of profiles (could be done in 10 mins of thoughtful effort) and even less to be in the top 20% of conversations (keep pants zipped).

Of all the guys you swipe right on, what percentage are below 5'9?

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they want the men they're not interested in to go pair up with other women, decreasing the competition for the men they are interested in?

20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women. This is leaving everyone except the 20% of men dissatisfied with the situation.

It's just like economics. A small minority is rich, the majority are poor.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/comparing-income-sex-redist...

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#117
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but there are many, many studies showing that on dating apps, it's 80% of the women choosing 20% of the men. Many women are also fairly ignorant about how unrealistic some standards (over 6' tall, makes over $100K/yr.) are.

[flagged]

While a shit ton of men do in fact sabotage themselves with dick picks, they also work a non-zero amount of times, which sort of drives the whole problem with them.

But no, "it's not that easy" for most men to experience ANYTHING on Tindr. Just go look at posts on data reddits where people export their tindr profile into a visualization. The average "male" experience actually looks most like the experience of a (self described) "fat" woman. This matches what OkCupid found before they were purchased by Match.com and hid that blog post.

There's no shame or problem with women having a powerful market and getting what they need or want from above average men, but at the very least be honest with yourself about the position that puts unlucky or below average men in.

I recommend you ask to "run" a male friend's tinder for a day, especially if they don't do well on tinder. I once let my sister and her friend run my tinder, and it was eye opening just how little it took for them to swipe left on EVERYONE. "I don't like her smile", or "eh" or basically ANYONE below a 9 got left swiped, or anyone that had any opinion at all in their bio. It was insane. I was NOT the level of attractiveness to be that choosy. Even my current girlfriend says my bumble profile wasn't that attractive. Good thing she swiped right though, because she is very happy with the person I ended up being. All she had to do was look past physical appearance, IE, stop looking for 9s that were not interested anyway.

One thing I don't see people discussing (outside of women's spaces at least) is how sexual assault drives poor Tinder satisfaction (for both parties). Way too many women report being sexually assaulted or raped by their Tinder dates, often saying that Match.com does not respond to their accusations, putting other women at risk. Women will of course try to be more choosy from that, because getting raped for wanting a casual date or something is insane.

Both parties report strong dissatisfaction with apps like Tinder. Men swipe right on everyone because that's their only hope of getting ANY attention at all, literally relying on winning the lottery to get a single date, while women are extremely choosy and have very high expectations, because it's their market to dictate, but as long as they both do the "rational" thing, they will continue to suffer, because if you "defect" a la game theory, you objectively have a bad time.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#118
People seek affirmation, wouldn't having a character to offer support, like an avatar extension of your own self-affirmation, be a potentially beneficial thing?

I think I'd quite like a few more attaboys maybe some encouraging texts? Maybe I'd be more in the market for an 'AI friend'.

Can't trying to please a bot teach you about pleasing, or just getting on with, real people? "I love it when you belch cheeto dust, then rub your unwashed beer belly against me on your filthy, stinking bed" isn't really go to pass as realistic, is it?

Why does the article jump to the assumption that men would want to pay for a bot ('AI girlfriend') that they can verbally abuse? That seems so misandrist?

Maybe some will want to play out violent fantasies: for me the question of whether that acts as catharsis and reduces real acts of violence, or acts to stimulate further violent tendencies is an open question??

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they want the men they're not interested in to go pair up with other women, decreasing the competition for the men they are interested in?

20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women. This is leaving everyone except the 20% of men dissatisfied with the situation.

Ah, that article... Here's the paper:

https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&conte...

With a sample size of 29 women and 0 men, they presented 100 tinder profiles and asked them if they would swipe right or left. The sample size was all Korean and excluded anyone that looked "foreign" with no further explanation of what that meant. The women were likely to swipe right only 20-30% of the time, however, they go on to explain that while some 40% of the profiles were rejected by most participants, there was only 1 profile that was accepted by over 80% of participants.

At worst, this indicates that 40% of men are generally undesirable to a large part of the female population. But the researchers asked the participants why they rejected these most-rejected profiles:

> To better understand possible reasons for rejection we have additionally analyzed the profiles that were rejected the most (by more than 90% of the participants). In the majority of those pictures (61.5%), a man’s face could not be seen clearly, which supports previous findings. When a face can be seen, there was weird or unfriendly facial expression (60%) or excessive photo editing (20%), which were also mentioned during the qualitative stage as the reasons for swiping left.

So it sounds like this study is finding that profile presentation is much more of a factor for universal rejection than other factors such as aesthetics, fitness, status, etc.

This study has a small sample size, doesn't make the claims that the articles all make, and doesn't contain any data to support those articles. The study also assumes that all men will swipe right on all women in the study. When they run an experiment where they put 100 women and 100 men into the same study and show them each-others tinder profiles, maybe you'd be able to make the claim that 20% of men are dating 80% of men, but that's not what the study winds up saying. They say that women are rejecting ~80% of possible matches, but in aggregate, only about 30% of profiles had fewer than 5 of 29 swipe rights, and only 1% of the profiles were rejected by all participants and 1% of profiles were accepted by all participants.

Re: We Can't Compete with AI Girlfriends

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming those are your only two criteria, that narrows the population to 2.5%. If you throw age and relative health then all bets are off.

Tangent: where'd you get that number? Not questioning it, I'd just love to know if there's a tool that makes it easy to get intersections with that kind of data.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37574915
Post reply on HN