Creepy catfish or useful co-pilot: Can AI help with dating app success?

Published

2 years ago

July 17, 2023

admin

An eye-catching profile picture, music tastes that match your own and no opinion on whether pineapple should go on pizza.

As far as dating app profiles go, it doesn’t get much better than that. You swipe right or send a like, and put your phone away, hoping the interest might be mutual.

Lo and behold, barely an hour’s passed and you’ve matched. The excitement is only equalled by the overwhelming fear of what comes next: starting a conversation.

The need to come up with flirty, funny chat can feel like a constant pressure. “I found myself overthinking what the opening line should be,” says Neo Cheng, a health care worker and vlogger. “The more you think, the more you go into this downward spiral.”

Having seen it handle politicians’ speeches, school homework and even some journalism, the 33-year-old Canadian decided to see if ChatGPT could be his digital wingman.

Back in February, Sky News asked the chatbot for tips ahead of Valentine’s Day. But the cheesy chat-up lines (“If you were a vegetable, you’d be a cutecumber.”) and creepy photo comments (“Your smile is so warm and inviting!”) got a thumbs down from our dating expert.

But things have changed since then, with AI developing faster than people swipe left on my Tinder profile and ChatGPT enjoying a substantial upgrade.

The experiment

Neo got ChatGPT to write a 100-word Tinder bio, based on some information about him.

“An introvert with a kind heart,” it wrote, who “loves trying new foods” and is “looking for someone to share laughs and adventures with”. It carried on about how much Neo loved everything from summer to helping others. The tone was more soppy romance novel than snappy dating profile.

Asked for something more concise, it went with: “Health care pro, introverted Aquarius and amateur YouTuber. Summer-loving meat-eater with a weird sense of humour. Enjoys Radiohead, Coldplay, and Justin Bieber. Seeking a partner in crime for laughs and adventures.”

Then on to the photos. The AI suggested using a “clear, well-lit headshot”, an action shot, and a candid photo to go last. Neo went to his Instagram page to find photos that matched its ideas.

Once the profile was complete, each match received a response written by ChatGPT based on prompts Neo gave it about each person’s profile.

Talking to matches

Anyone who’s used chatbots will know they can often sound a bit formal and use flowery language.

Politeness can go a long way, though, and AI delivers that in spades.

“I can only imagine how tiring it can be to learn so much new information, but at least you’re making progress!” was ChatGPT’s response when one of Neo’s matches revealed they’d started a new job.

The chatbot is also a stickler for correct grammar, punctuation, and capital letters – some way from how most people write online. It may give off a good impression, says Neo, but it sounds a little inauthentic.

Its chat-up lines remained cheesy: “Excuse me, but I think you dropped something. My jaw.”

Told the match had responded with a “lol”, ChatGPT proposed: “Glad to see I can still make someone laugh! Want to grab a drink and see if we can keep the laughter going?”

Standing out from the crowd

ChatGPT may have been keen, but Neo’s experiment was just that: an experiment.

The “what I’m looking for” section of his profile was set to “just new friends” and matches were told about the true nature of his replies before the conversation led to a potential meet-up.

But a recent survey by cybersecurity firm Kaspersky and dating app, Inner Circle, found more than half of single men really would consider using a chatbot to help talk to matches. And 51% of women said they would use it to sustain multiple conversations, just as university lecturer Owen is doing.

He lets ChatGPT do most of the work and adds “personal touches”.

“I hadn’t used dating apps for a while,” explains the 44-year-old. “Finding time to have multiple conversations was harder than going on an in-person date.

“Coming up with new lines to open the door to possible dates can be draining,” he says. “Using AI has helped eliminate the ‘writer’s block’ that comes with app dating.”

A new era of catfishing?

But to Jay Dodds, co-founder of dating app Bonkers, which has put user safety at its centre, even AI-generated chat-up lines are a step too far.

“I hate the idea” of using AI to find or talk to a match, Dodds says. “I’m a tech enthusiast and there is a place for AI, but when it comes to dating apps it’s the worst possible idea.

“Even if you create a chat-up line, if it’s not something you would naturally do, you’re already putting a false sense of yourself across.

“We’re about promoting safety, and no catfishing is part of that.”

Kaspersky and Inner Circle’s survey also raised concerns about a new era of AI-based catfishing, with 57% of respondents believing its use in an online dating setting to be dishonest.

‘Do a sense check’

Dating coach Hayley Quinn is similarly cautious about AI’s role in looking for love. She encourages people to do a “sense check” before putting any generated lines into practice, ensuring they are appropriate.

And for those worried about being on the receiving end, there are things to look out for.

Neo says from his experience, signs include responses in full sentences “where everything’s perfect”. “If people are responding in full sentences, full stops, capped up properly, it would make me a little paranoid,” he adds.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Indeed, his experiment left him less convinced of AI’s role in a genuine attempt to date.

“If you’re using AI, when you actually go on a date it’s to your own detriment,” he says. “There is no help, you’re on your own: what are you going to say?”

As if dating apps weren’t already loaded with red flags, from suspiciously low-res photos to avoiding questions, this brave – or terrifying – new era of AI may have thrown up another one: Who is even writing these messages?

World

At least 60 killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza, health staff say

Published

8 hours ago

June 28, 2025

admin

At least 60 killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza, health staff say

At least 60 people have been killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza, health staff have said.

A dozen people were killed near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, along with eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital, where the bodies were brought.

Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital.

Follow latest: ‘Death to America’ chants in Tehran

The strikes, which began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, came as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week.

“We’re working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of,” he told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister for strategic affairs, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza’s ceasefire, Iran and other subjects, an official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The last ceasefire agreed back in mid-January ended in March.

The war in Gaza was sparked after Hamas launched its attack on Israel in October 2023, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251 people.

Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with fewer than half of them still believed to be alive.

More than 56,000 Palestinians have been killed during the war, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.

The UN has also warned that people in Gaza are “starving”, with Israel allowing a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May after blocking all food for more than two months.

Palestinians have been shot at and killed while on their way to get food at aid sites, according to Gaza’s health officials and witnesses.

Israel’s military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.

World

Chants of ‘death to America’ at funeral for Iranian military commanders and scientists

Published

8 hours ago

June 28, 2025

admin

Chants of 'death to America' at funeral for Iranian military commanders and scientists

Thousands of people have taken to the streets in Tehran to mourn top military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Iran’s 12-day war with Israel.

Iran’s state-run Press TV said the event – dubbed the “funeral procession of the Martyrs of Power” – was held for a total of 60 people, including four women and four children.

Follow live: Iran hits out at Trump’s ‘unacceptable’ remarks

It said at least 16 scientists and 10 senior commanders were among the dead, including the head of the Revolutionary Guard General Hossein Salami and the head of the guard’s ballistic missile programme, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

Their coffins were driven on trucks into the Iranian capital’s Azadi Square adorned with their pictures as well as rose petals and flowers, as crowds waved Iranian flags.

Mourners dressed in black, while chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel” could be heard.

Attending the funeral were Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior figures, including Ali Shamkhani who was seriously wounded during the conflict and is an adviser to Iran‘s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

There was no immediate sign of the supreme leader in the state broadcast of the funeral.

Israel, the only Middle Eastern country widely believed to have nuclear weapons, said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.

The US launched strikes on three nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, which Donald Trump said left them “obilterated”.

The Iranian government denies having a nuclear weapons programme and the UN nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, has said it has “no credible indication” of an active, coordinated weapons programme in the country.

Over the almost two weeks of fighting, Israel claimed it killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, before a ceasefire went into effect on Tuesday.

According to Iranian health ministry figures, 610 people were killed on the Iranian side, 13 of whom were children and 49 were women.

Israel’s health ministry said 28 people were killed in Israel and 3,238 injured.

World

Why critics believe Trump’s big win in Supreme Court is ‘terrifying step towards authoritarianism’

Published

8 hours ago

June 28, 2025

admin

Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'

As the president himself said, this was a “giant” of a decision – a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news.

The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump.

By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president.

Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges.

The federal judges, branded “radical leftist lunatics” by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration.

They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions – thus blocking the Trump administration’s policies.

“It was a grave threat to democracy frankly,” the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room.

“Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,” he said.

In simple terms, this ruling – from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges – frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts.

“This is such a big day,” the president said.

“It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power.

“And it’s really going to be… a very monumental decision.”

The country’s most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it “an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court”.

In a statement, Schumer wrote: “By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the court is not defending the constitution – it’s defacing it.

“This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy.”

Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government – the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts).

They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful.

This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship – that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here.

A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th amendment of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has deferred its judgment on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges.

The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: “As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of government, the majority sees a power grab – but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the constitution.

“Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are… (wait for it)… the district courts.”

Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: “Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling.

Writing for the majority, she said: “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply ‘class action’ – to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation.

There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers.

The ruling ends a giddy week for the president.

Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire.

By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands.

At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire “within a week” in Gaza.

A truly consequential week seems set to be followed by another.