Clearly the purpose here is to weed out fraud and abuse more easily by analyzing chats between users. I'd welcome it. I'm pretty sure some dating apps already do this, both with text and images, but ChatGPT is probably better at it.
They're going to be unknowingly chatting with bots.
It's a logical extension of things that are well established are happening: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38447794
It's one of the purest examples of short term business thinking I can imagine. Will this goose this quarter's revenue? Heck yeah. But there may not be a dating app market at all in three years once the public realizes that "dating apps" are just fancy wrappers around ChatGPT built to "drive engagement" by making damned sure you don't actually ever enter into a long term relationship with an actual human.
It seems dating apps will be leading the way into fulfilling the Dead Internet Theory.
Anyhow, I expect them to announce something a lot more innocuous but do something a lot less innocuous. It doesn't have to be exactly what I said, which would be pretty blatant, though personally I have absolutely no problem imagining it would happen, but it'll be something that if someone just directly described it to you without sugar coating it you'd find offensive, I guarantee it. The game theory all but guarantees it; if $YOU don't do it, someone else will, so it may as well be $YOU. Basically a tragedy of the commons.
This distrust is already building around us right now, it's not a theory. I don't live in Silicon Valley and I think that can sometimes help serve as a counterpoint to an excessively SV-view of the world here on HN sometimes. The normies in my life are already talking about this sort of thing, unprompted by me. Dating apps may be the vanguard but there's plenty of things charging behind them.
Game theory does not guarantee that everything turns to shit; that sort of glib summary makes me think you don't know what the tragedy of the commons even is, or the obvious application to a race to the bottom in this particular segment. Again, it's not like it's some brand new hypothesis that dating apps do scummy things to drive engagement; I gave an example. I find people's touching child-like faith that a known-scummy portion of the market won't do some other scummy thing once the opportunity presents itself to be simply incomprehensible. Plenty of people aren't nice, especially people already doing scummy things. Psychopaths are real and do real things to real people in the real world, not some sort of hypothetical construction dreamed up by disconnect ivory tower psychologists as a theoretical test case.
Baseless assertion. If people get sick of dating apps because they somehow all end up being full of bots, someone can make a new dating app where the primary selling point is that they prevent or minimise bots, maybe using some kind of human vetting process. Many people would then use that app.
> faith that a known-scummy portion of the market won't do some other scummy thing
I have no such faith. I did acknowledge that parts of the market can degrade, and that you might even be right that bots will ruin most existing dating apps. That could happen. But the idea that this would definitely spell the end of all dating apps is just an assertion you are making with no evidence.
It's also pretty widely known that a lot of the big dating websites started out with a bunch of first-party fake profiles and activity, because nobody joins a dating website that doesn't have any users. Usually once the site becomes successful though they get rid of the first-party fake activity though.
So first-party bots and bots that are active right now on the major sites are both plausible. Just maybe not first-party bots that are active on the major sites right now.
<meme>Is it though?</meme>