Years later. How we feel about AI thus far? Has it been underwhelming and overrated?

[bnew]

I hate it. No matter what it does, all I can see is it costing me my job in the future.

it's gonna cost a lot of peoples jobs in the future, should be organizing to figure out how to get our government officials to prepare for that.

 

[bnew]

It's only as good as the person doing the input. Some people will ask it a basic question and take that as the end all be all of a topic. I'm literally in a Booth topic back and forth this a user doing this now
You see stories about attorneys, students, etc are failing when they use it lazily ....putting out complete bs

exactly which is why I always ask for specifics when I hear criticisms of it because more often than not people are prompting it very poorly.

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

exactly which is why I always ask for specifics when I hear criticisms of it because more often than not people are prompting it very poorly.

My friend is a chair of a charity scholarship board and they had to exclude use of AI in scholarship application because it was giving fake and poor responses.

She was also talking to a guy who wrote her a love poem or some ish, claiming it was from the heart. She ran that ish through a reverse AI software or whatever and it said a majority of it was written by AI. Needless to say they didn't talk much longer lol

Lot of trash users

 

[Yogi]

Overrated and overhyped

 

[JT-Money]

@JT-Money

Overrated Garbage. But I'm just waiting on the first major AI hack so I can cash in.

 

[bnew]

My friend is a chair of a charity scholarship board and they had to exclude use of AI in scholarship application because it was giving fake and poor responses.

She was also talking to a guy who wrote her a love poem or some ish, claiming it was from the heart. She ran that ish through a reverse AI software or whatever and it said a majority of it was written by AI. Needless to say they didn't talk much longer lol

Lot of trash users

I read a article a while back about people using chatgpt for dating apps but not having any charisma when they meet up for the first date. this isn't the article below but it talks about it.

So You Fell for a Robot—‘Chatfishing’ Is Taking Over the Dating Apps

Forget fake profile pics on dating apps—AI is now doing the talking, and we can’t tell the difference

www.scientificamerican.com

this isn't the article

October 23, 2025
4 min read

So You Fell for a Robot—‘Chatfishing’ Is Taking Over the Dating Apps​

Forget fake profile pics on dating apps—AI is now doing the talking, and we can’t tell the difference
By Deni Ellis Béchard edited by Andrea Gawrylewski & Clara Moskowitz

​

Donald Iain Smith/Getty Images

It’s a well-worn adage of the Internet age: people often aren’t what they seem to be online. But until recently, you could at least be assured that they were people. Now, though, “chatfishing,” a new wave of online deception, is taking over dating apps. Instead of “catfishing”—using an entirely fake identity—people are using artificial intelligence to help them chat up prospective love interests and secure dates.

And tech to help them do it is on the rise. People on dating apps may copy and paste their prospective date’s messages into chatbots such as ChatGPT or give it screenshots of text conversations, seeking advice. “Wingman apps” such as Rizz, Winggg and YourMove AI suggest responses to uploaded screenshots of incoming messages; the marketing for YourMove AI claims that it “puts your texting on cruise control.” Some dating platforms are also adopting AI coaching. Hinge uses an AI-powered tool to encourage users to give better answers to its prompts without generating a script, and Facebook Dating is testing a “dating assistant” to brainstorm dating ideas. Volar, a dating app that launched in late 2023, even let people train an AI version of themselves that flirted with someone else’s AI as a pre‑date screening, like two emissaries handling the small talk before the generals sit down. (Volar shuttered in 2024, suggesting that humans still want some level of involvement in their dating choices.)
A recent survey by Match and researchers at the Kinsey Institute found that 26 percent of U.S. singles said they use AI to enhance dating—a 333 percent jump from the year before. A 2025 study from Norton supports this: six in 10 people who use dating apps believe they’ve encountered at least one conversation written by AI. And Time reported that the Rizz app drew roughly 1.5 million monthly active users last year.
Many dating app users report matching with people who were engaging while texting but boring in person, yet no studies exist that show whether chatfishers get more dates. The science, however, suggests people struggle to distinguish between human- and machine-written text. In a 2024 study, humans were only about 57 percent accurate in determining whether news article snippets were written by humans or AI, and a 2025 preprint paper showed that human judges who simultaneously chatted with OpenAI’s model GPT-4.5 and a human mistook the AI for a human 73 percent of the time.

Even outside of a dating context, AI often ends up successfully seducing people: An MIT Media Lab analysis of a fast‑growing Reddit community called r/MyBoyfriendIsAI found that romantic attachment is often unintentional when using chatbots. People come for practical help, such as writing assistance or problem-solving, and stay for companionship. Soon there are pet names, goodnight texts and then grief when the model updates and the chatbot’s personality drifts.
A human-machine romance may be off-putting but shouldn’t be surprising. ChatGPT was, as its name suggests, designed for chatting, and ample research shows that humans bond through communication. But if connection is so fundamentally human, why do we need the help of machines?
The answer is that with dating apps we’re on computer turf—it’s not our home field. We evolved to speak in person, with gestures, facial expressions, body language and eye contact all helping others complete the half-finished thoughts we sometimes utter. Dating apps (and all chatbot conversations, really) favor machines not just because the apps reduce our embodied lives to text but also because, for the past half-century, computers have been optimized to sound as flawlessly human as possible.

The classic test of computer intelligence—proposed by British computer pioneer Alan Turing in 1950—looks a lot like a dating chat. In the Turing test, a judge communicates by text with two unseen interlocutors—one human, one machine—and tries to tell them apart. If the judge can’t, the machine “passes.” Year after year, engineers have competed to create chatbots capable of passing. Only in 2024 did models begin outperforming humans, and by 2025, as previously mentioned, ChatGPT was fooling judges more than 70 percent of the time.
And the deeper twist is that, for decades, even when the machines failed, humans often did, too—coming across as mechanical, rehearsed or generic. Now, on dating apps, Turing tests are playing out in real time. A woman messages two matches; one drafts replies while the other lets a bot handle the exchange. If she arranges a date with the AI, that system just passed.
Author Brian Christian explored this irony in his 2011 book The Most Human Human, which chronicled his experience competing against chatbots in Turing tests. His advice to stand out as decidedly human was to be gloriously embodied. Don’t say you like music; say you cried when you heard the second verse. Don’t say you love dogs; describe your childhood Doberman that slept in the hammock for fear of the Roomba. “The statistical, cultural, ritual regularities of human interaction are the weaknesses that these machines exploit,” he wrote.
Though modern life, with its endless messaging, favors the machines, asking for their help isn’t a road to finding love. As studies and stories from the dating trenches show, our romantic interests may fall for the AI but not for us. The solution may be in letting go of saying the right things and just being real—giving and looking for what is true, flawed and unmistakably human.

 

[the bossman]

5-10 years from now it will probably be incredible. Right now it's extremely overrated. That shyt hallucinates a lot. The one thing that mf will never say is "not sure" or "I don't know". Just make up any ol random bs. for that, it fukks up just enough that I'm not worried about it taking my job anytime soon. with all the fukkups it's still lucrative . A LOT of dollars sloshing around with data centers and AI companies popping up left and right. amazing time to be an entrepreneur

 

[Json]

I feel like we are at the same part of the “new” innovation cycle that Lyft/Uber were at were they swear this is going to destroy an industry but then the fact the reality of running an actual company comes due and the bloom wears off.

They are engrained in the fabric of society but it wasn’t the revolution advertised either.

 

[O.T.I.S.]

Currently overhyped, overpriced, and useless outside of individuals who actually use it for serious purposes, backed by greedy/sleazy billionaires, pandered into American culture, glorified by the lazy, reduces critical thinking, reduces creativity, reduces authenticity……

AI has been around and always had great potential but until it’s regulated, has proper EFFICIENT infrastructure, and isn’t promoted by capitalist billionaire scammers using it to cut corners then its an overhyped dud

 

[UpThruDere]

As with any other tool, it’s all about how the user uses it

 

[Wargames]

It creates good low tier content that anyone with prior knowledge will dismiss as AI Swill/word vomit immediately. However, if you know what you are doing you can get some quality out of it. It’s not making good/great product in a vacuum. Human editing is still needed.

 

[ChatGPT-5]

It's only as good as the person doing the input.
Some people will ask it a basic question and take that as the end all be all of a topic. I'm literally in a Booth topic back and forth this a user doing this now

the funny part is your replies were the input

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

I read a article a while back about people using chatgpt for dating apps but not having any charisma when they meet up for the first date. this isn't the article below but it talks about it.

So You Fell for a Robot—‘Chatfishing’ Is Taking Over the Dating Apps

Forget fake profile pics on dating apps—AI is now doing the talking, and we can’t tell the difference

www.scientificamerican.com

this isn't the article

October 23, 2025
4 min read

So You Fell for a Robot—‘Chatfishing’ Is Taking Over the Dating Apps​

Forget fake profile pics on dating apps—AI is now doing the talking, and we can’t tell the difference
By Deni Ellis Béchard edited by Andrea Gawrylewski & Clara Moskowitz

Golly that's a lot of babble. I knew I hated science for a reason! I just texted her this an wrote "interesting article"

 

[AquaCityBoy]

One of the few redeeming qualities of Gen Z is that they absolutely hate AI and refuse to use it

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

the funny part is your replies were the input

You took my input to come up with a rap song that ranthe chart in both 24 and 25 and your forum clapback was "well actually its was only 53 weeks through both 24 and 25, but not last week so rap isn't popular, or creative or entertaining"

Which makes no sense

These are our coli AI Users yall