
Ask HN: OkCupid, Online Dating, Machine Learning, the Future, Etc. - baccheion
How many questions would it theoretically take to have a solidly complete match&#x2F;enemy percentage? How do you think the questions need to be separated out to get full value from them (raw tolerance builder (bunch of questions to match on to see raw percentage hit or missed), dealbreaker (unacceptable answers filter, flag, significantly &quot;ding&quot;, etc), elevators (acceptable answers positively flag, boost, etc))? What other bits of information would help round out, improve, complete, and refine the almighty match percentage? What else can be added to a &quot;fictional&quot; dating site&#x27;s user experience or &quot;data collection&#x2F;sharing&quot; ends in order to have the results be even better and more accurate? What was not possible in the past (but was needed) that is doable now?<p>If machine learning &#x2F; AI &#x2F; * neural networks &#x2F; etc were involved with online dating, then what setup would allow maximum value from the results? That is, should it be used to, for example, just predict user&#x27;s answers, then use those predicted answers until the user explicitly shares their answer, or should it be used to &quot;sample the infinite&quot; (have users answer questions, interact with the site, etc, such that it can &quot;catch on&quot; to what the user likes&#x2F;needs and is like), or something else?<p>If there could be anything, then what should it be? What is needed? What is missing?<p>I&#x27;m really annoyed these sites aren&#x27;t improving or aren&#x27;t &quot;up to snuff,&quot; but then perhaps they aren&#x27;t so far from what&#x27;s required, and it&#x27;s just minor refinements that are necessary. I don&#x27;t know-- what&#x27;s missing from the online dating experience? What&#x27;s not explicitly needed, but then would be hugely convenient or cool? What else do you think goes into helping infer overall datability&#x2F;compatibility, and future success? Should there be more explicit sex-related questions in general (and for those looking mainly to date short-term or hookup)? Do the questions general need to be more specific, numerous, and detailed, or more generalized? Etc.
======
throwaway420
> what's missing from the online dating experience?

There are lots of interesting machine learning or other features that smart
people could come up with to better group people who have similar
personalities or are interested in common things, but I think they'd all be
missing the main point of dating. How much stuff you have in common or whether
you share a couple of personality traits are nice to have but really don't
matter. It all still comes down to attraction.

Don't take that hipster vegan socialist seriously online who swears they won't
date a Trump-loving meat eater. If there's attraction there, they won't care
about their nonsensical list of "must-haves".

Rule #1: be attractive. If you think you're not attractive: shut up and lift
and work on your life so you get towards making yourself more attractive.
Don't let any dang folks spin you the politically correct Disney version of
reality that you just haven't met the right person yet or some other nonsense.

From this regard, the core of Tinder is probably the closest to accurately
quantifying the real human experience, though the number of spammers and bots
on there make it not really worth the time.

~~~
fratlas
As backwards as this comment sounds, it's the truth. You need to be attracted
to someone first, and _then_ you maybe share a sense of humour or shared
interests (if that). End of the day, you just need someone you can easily
spend time with, without ripping each others heads off.

------
angersock
The biggest problem with these sites is that people lie all the time, to
themselves and others.

The things that people claim are dealbreaks ("She's a Republican!", "He lives
with his parents!", "I would never engage in casual sex!") tend not to be in
practice, once the opportunity presents itself.

But when asked point-blank? Oh yeah, I totally couldn't date somebody who
supported cruelty to animals in lab test (one sec, gotta adjust my makeup), or
who voted conservative (hold on, lemme claim my tax exemptions), or who's a
virgin (well, everybody's gotta learn sometime).

There's AI and control theory that seeks to reason about an uncertain world--
but in dating, it's active delusion and misinformation. People don't know
themselves, and even if they do know themselves, they invent bullshit reasons
why obviously good pairings aren't.

That's before you even get into the economics of those sites and why helping
people date successfully isn't profitable.

~~~
visarga
I think being in a relationship requires a kind of giving up of control, a
"surrender" to the flow of the relationship, and many people are just too
inflexible and want everything to fit perfectly to their pet peeves. So they
pass good opportunities while waiting for the "perfect match" which never
comes.

------
psyklic
throwaway420 is correct that attraction will get you more dates.

However, the outcome of a first date with any particular person also seems to
have high variability (if you were somehow able to repeat it!). There are so
many small factors that make a "great" date, e.g. both people's mood, their
openness, the date activity, confidence/actions, other options at the time,
etc.

Even if you are both wildly attracted to each other, some people are only
looking for the novelty of new people. Others have high standards for a date
that are only rarely met. Nowadays, many people line up so many dates that the
odds of a single one working out are low. They've lost those "butterflies"
that are often needed to even be open enough to match with someone.

So, given all of this variability, there is unlikely to be a "perfect"
matching algorithm.

------
DrNuke
It's called chemistry and no, it usually does not start from apps and models,
real life interaction instead.

------
uptownfunk
Some friends I know wrote an algorithm where all it took as inputs were
date/time/place of birth. Pretty cool, all the matched it made were matches
amenable to both parties. Makes you wonder how much information really is
needed and if there is a simpler way around this problem.

~~~
baccheion
After analyzing many OkCupid profiles, it became clear that 16-20% of all
available matches are usually good matches (above 75%). That is, if you were
paired randomly with people (on the internet) of the gender and age range you
were interested in (and that are interested in people your age and gender),
then 1 in 5 of them, on average, would be acceptable matches.

This varies wildly per person, but the overall average was surprising. That
is, it seems low, but when you think about it, it's actually quite profound.
You could randomly pick 5 straight or bisexual women between the ages of 19
and 37 (from among all the women in the world), for example, and it's likely 1
of them would be a good match.

------
Jugurtha
You seem to have the knowledge and skills to pull this thing off. I'd advise
against wasting your time doing so. For several reasons:

Taking anything people say in their answers at face value is a mistake at
best, naive at worst.

These are not technical specs. These are people describing themselves
publicly. They'll most likely be inaccurate either by design or unconsciously
and rightly so. Yes, rightly so. You can have a PhD woman who drinks wine in
her bath tub while she reads Sartre and dissecting Stravinsky who'll be
wanting to get her head banged against the head board at that particular
moment. Do we think she'll put that thought on her profile? No. She'll refrain
from saying that because society likes clear cut labels and will reduce that
complex human being to one tiny aspect of her humanity.

That's one reason.

The other reason building all that AI for "online dating" isn't a worthy
endeavor is because the point of online is discovery and initial contact.
That's it.

Discovery is when you notice a human being you didn't know before. Initial
contact is exactly what it says: making contact.

Once you discover their existence, you make contact. You chat for a bit and
hopefully you like each other to a certain degree. Then you go to another
platform, namely Skype, and have a chat to get a feel of each other's vibe,
voice, body, etc. Yes, people are willing to get naked but only for people
who're used to get other people naked.. One of those "free for those who can
afford it" things that are thrown at those who aren't starving for it.

But maybe they're listening to some music they find cool (sometimes really
cool music) and they want you to listen with them.

Then from Skype to exchanging phone numbers. Skype and not Facebook because
Skype is a better firewall than Facebook. It's easier to eliminate someone
from your life after a Skype chat than after a Facebook one because if you
stumble on an unstable person, now they have access to your friends and your
real name and can stalk you or cause a scene. Also, Skype is more discreet. It
avoids them the questions from other people about you. Maybe it's too early to
parade you in front of their friends. Maybe they're afraid their friend steals
you. Maybe they're engaged. Facebook adds degrees of freedom people would do
without at this stage.

After exchanging phone numbers, you meet. People decide if they _want_ to have
sex with another person during discovery and contact and if they're _going_ to
have sex with another person during a Skype session. In other words, you can
in most cases directly meet somewhere suitable for this (taking a room) for
you both want each other.

And there you have it, the beginning of a relationship.

From this, you see that the actual time spent with each person on the
discovery/contact platform is _tiny_ and doesn't justify building "an AI" for
it because it'd be like building "an AI" for football _locker rooms_ when the
game is played on football _fields_. A better example would be building an AI
to handle powering up a computer and finding the best ways to push the power
button. The problems in software don't exist because people don't know how to
turn on a computer, it what happens next.

Similarly, the problems in "dating" don't exist because people don't "find"
other people.. It's because they lack the skills to take it from there to add
to their lives and to the lives of those they meet.

As I said, you seem like a qualified person. If I had your skills, I wouldn't
be doing that.

