 |
|
|
|||||
A new dating app called Known, which went live earlier today in San Francisco, wants to offer users a dating experience that is far less gamifiedand far more enabled by artificial intelligence. The app, which uses voice-based conversations with an AI to match people to prospective romantic partners, is the latest evidence that the next generation of dating apps isnt looking to maximize matches. In other words, theres no swiping. Known, founded by former Stanford University students Celeste Amadon and Asher Allen, uses an AI-based chat interface that interviews prospective daters and gauges their interests and values. Then, the app uses a modelwhich the company says was designed in-house and based on compatibility and chemistry researchto pair them with one person (and only one person) for a potential date. Known also takes care of personalized introductions and assists with restaurant bookings. We’re able to view people on their entire nuanced selves and find people that are most likely to get along and enjoy each other. And that doesn’t have to come from strict principles, Amadon tells Fast Company. There are standard things that we need to know to be able to do good matching, like your age, or Do you live in San Francisco or New York? But from there, a lot of it is kind of user-guided.” She adds: The real core difference between us and a large dating app is that we are incentivized and built to try and get people on dates. Other dating apps are incentivized to try and lengthen their retention because they’re subscription-based businesses. Knowns model, Amadon says, charges people to actually set up a date with their matches, as opposed to subscription tiers of an app like Tinder, where users might pay extra to access certain features and the ability to send an unlimited number of “likes” to other people. (Of course, all dating apps need to focus, in part, on identifying new customers, since some share of their users will, eventually, find love and no longer need a dating app.) The apps release comes as both newcomer and veteran dating platforms embrace artificial intelligence-based features. Justin McLeod, the founder of Hinge, is planning to launch Overtone, which was initially built from a small team at Hinge, and he says it aims to combine cutting-edge AI capabilities with deep respect for the messy, human journey of connection. Theres also the relatively new Rizz app, an AI dating assistant that was designed to coach people through awkward digital small talk. Last fall, another platform, called Three Day Rule, introduced Tai, an AI matchmaker thats supposed to be trained on compatibility data coalesced by human matchmakers. The big companies are also leaning into artificial intelligence-based features. The Match Groupwhich owns Tinder, OkCupid, and Hingehas a whole page dedicated to its principles for using the technology. The company says that when it comes to AI, it prioritizes “explainability” and authenticity” among its core values to foster trust, safety, and meaningful connections. Matchs hiring page shows that it’s looking to fill plenty of machine-learning roles, too. Last December, Hinge released a new AI feature thats supposed to help move conversations forward by using generative AI to guide people in crafting their initial messages to others. Tinder has also said it’s using AI-powered matching, which factors in data that can include your app activity, your answers to questions, and the way youve tagged photos on the app. Even Facebook Dating is offering AI-powered advice for users. The idea is to aim for quality (rather than quantity) of matches, especially as interest in (and the appeal to pay for) swiping through profiles falls. Bumble has lost 9% of subscribers in the past year, The New York Times reported in November, and the Match Group has lost 5%. The rise of the AI dating interview A smaller number of these companies, including Known, are embracing voice-powered AI, too. Tinder partnered with OpenAI last year to offer a voice-based game meant to evaluate people’s flirting skills. Hinge added audio features and voice notes back in 2021, and the lesser-known Switch dating app encourages users to connect first through audio conversations. At least in Knowns case, people communicate with the app by talking to it. For instance, the app might ask you where you grew up and how you ended up in your current city, and users might end up sharing details about childhood experiences. From there, the system is supposed to pick up preferences that a prospective dater might have, based on what’s said in the conversation, as well as factors like tone and intonation. That information is later fed into the companys matching model. (Known says that recordings of the calls themselves are not saved.) The app doesnt currently pick up on the way people’s voices sound, but the company says its interested in exploring and analyzing the complexity of people’s speech in the future. Its still early days for Known, but the model has some traction. Seven thousand people participated in a beta testing round last year, and Amadon says that she and cofounder Allen have heard from several couples that connected and are still together. The company recently raised nearly $10 million, with support from the venture capital firm Forerunner. After the dates, we actually debrief with users to find out how it wentwhich means that we’re able to understand more about who you’re looking for and get better at finding that person over time, emphasizes Amadon.
Category:
E-Commerce
The worlds biggest tech companies are facing a legal showdown that could fundamentally change the way that social media is designed. The trial is taking place in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where jury selection started on January 27. Its testing out a new legal theory intended to spur greater regulation of social media platforms like TikTok, Snap, YouTube, and Metas Facebook and Instagram: Lawyers are gearing up to argue that the companies behind these platforms are designing their sites to be deliberately addictive, resulting in direct personal injury to users, especially children. Overall, the trial is expected to consist of nine cases, which have been compiled by judges across the nation as some of the strongest bellwethers for this new argument. First on the docket is a case brought by a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as K.G.M., who says that a lack of sufficient guardrails on social media sites during her youth led to compulsive use and mental health concerns such as depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm, and risk of suicide. The defendants named in K.G.M.s initial suit were Bytedance, the former majority owner of TikTok; Snap, which owns Snapchat; Google, the owner of YouTube; and Meta. However, both Snap and TikTok settled the suit in the days leading up to jury selection for undisclosed sums, leaving just Meta and Google. The results of these initial decisions are expected to serve as a testing ground for a second set of federal cases, scheduled for trial this summer, wherein several school districts, states, and attorneys general plan to argue that social media is a public nuisance and addictive to children. At the crux of all of these suits lies a design-based claim: These tech companies are using intentionally engineered tricks to foster addictive behaviors among young users. Court documents point out several specific user experience (UX) choices as evidence of this pattern. Here are a few of the key examples in question. [Illustration: FC] Endless scroll “Endless (or infinite) scroll” is a chief concern across almost all of the cases that have been filed. It refers to any feature that allows users to continuously scroll through video content without disruptions. One court document, filed by the Florida attorney generals office against Meta, claims that infinite scroll makes it difficult for young users to disengage [from the content] because there is no natural end point for the display of new information. In a court filing before Bytedances settlement, K.G.M. testified that TikToks endless scroll feature disrupted her sleep and caused her to become addicted to the app. According to confidential internal messages obtained by NPR back in October, TikTok is aware of the addictive nature of its central endless scroll Explore page, and even calculated the number of videos required to become hooked to the app to be 260. [Illustration: FC] Ephemeral content Another pattern of social media design thats frequently cited in these legal documents is ephemeral content. This refers to any kind of post that can only be viewed under certain time parameters, like a once-viewable snap on Snapchat or an 24-hour Instagram story. The Florida attorney generals office specifically called out Metas visual design cues on Instagram Stories indicating that the content would soon disappear forever,” noting that this tactic made young users feel more compelled to keep clicking on new content to avoid potential social consequences. Meta designed such ephemeral content features to induce a sense of FOMO in young users, that is, a fear of missing out, which would drive teen engagement, the filing reads. [Illustration: FC] Algorithmic recommendations One of the most concerning details in K.G.M.s testimony regards the algorithmic recommendations that shes encountered on social media, which she says have repeatedly directed her to content with disturbing or damaging themes. I have gotten a lot of content promoting that kind of stuffjust like body checking, posts [of] what I eat in a dayjust a cucumbermaking people feel bad if they dont eat like that, she said in her deposition. Per the Florida attorney generals filing, Metas algorithms direct users to concerning content like this by design. Its platforms, the document reads, periodically [present] users with emotionally gripping content to provoke intense reactions’ (e.g., relating to eating disorders, self-har, suicide, violence, body-image issues, and more), a result of what Meta purportedly refers to as the algorithms’ preference amplification. Despite Meta’s representations to the contrary, this design results in harm to young users. For their part, K.G.M.s lawyers are grounding their arguments in past precedents established by cases ruling that products with purposefully addictive designs should be off-limits to kids. “Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, [d]efendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit alleges. It adds: “Like the cigarette industry a generation earlier, [d]efendants understand that a child user today becomes an adult user tomorrow.
Category:
E-Commerce
Recently, I have developed a conflicted relationship with Lego. I love it. Theres so much Lego in our apartment that you can remove the brick and mortar, and I would still have a standing home. But lately, Im getting fed up with how hard the Danish company is pushing it. Pushing the absurd licensing deals. Pushing nostalgia. Pushing the gigantic sets that adults want, kids dream of, but so many parents cant afford. And sure. I cant really blame Lego for wanting to make money. Its a private company, and they are in the business of, you know, selling stuff. But by pushing so hard in every department, Lego risks brand exhaustion. At least, it’s exhausting the brick out of me. Lego is one of the greatest, most beloved brands in the world. One that resonates with adults and kids at many levels. Emotionally, millions have that memory that makes us teary. I think back on recent memories of crafting Lego worlds with my son, as well as distant memories, like assembling spaceships with my father and siblings. Rationally, theres a definitive appeal in the engineering of building complex designs from very simple pieces. Culturally, Lego is iconic on its own and often becomes entangled with other iconic brands, from Star Wars to Harry Potter. Sensorially, the touch, the clickity-clack-click of the building experience itself brings calm and anchors you to the present, making you forget problems and worries. Clearly, Lego has many paths to our pocketbooks. Its just that now, it feels like the worldwide Lego craze is on overdrive, and its becoming way too much. There are many things that bother me. The companys increasing reliance on licensed IP themes is one of them. While some licensed sets from Star Wars and Ghostbusters are great because of their clever design and engineering, many others feel like cash grabs. Like the recent Marvel logo set, a monument to shilling that lacks both the creativity and playability that these toys always strived for. Others feel out of place, like their deal with FIFA, a shady sports organization plagued with corruption scandals and wrongdoings. That cannot be further away from the Danish companys alleged innocent spirit and its learning-through-play philosophy. For a company that bans miniature replicas of guns from its sets, its appalling to see it associated with brutal dictatorial regimes, even if it is only by proxy. Plus, Legos World Cup trophy looks as hideous as Donald Trumps FIFA Peace Prize. Enough already The 1×1 plate that spilled my mental Lego cup was the ad that introduced its latest toy line: Pokémon. It is such a smarmy play for millennials thatwhile I love both Pokémon and LegoI couldnt help but have an instant visceral hate for it. That licensing deal also highlighted another huge problem, which is the proliferation of expensive sets. The company traditionally aims big multi-thousand-piece sets at adults. But it’s one thing to sell adults the Taj Mahal, the Titanic, or the Roman Colosseum, and it’s another to put out a $1,000 Death Star or this $650 Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise set. Both sold out in a few hours. Sure, adults will buy those, but do you really expect kids to look at those toys and not want them? Lego has always sold the occasional pricey setespecially in the Star Wars linebut the size (and price) increase is nuts. Data from the popular Lego set tracker Brickset shows that, in the entire pre2000 era, there were only 28 sets with over 1,000 pieces. By mid2025, there were already 80 such sets released in six months alone, showing a huge increase in the annual volume of big sets. The same data shows that there has been a big price increase. In 2016, the average Lego set cost about $40. From 2024 to 2026, that average had grown to around $70. Thats about a 75% price increase over the last decade, caused by the increase of licensed IP sets (which add an extra margin to pay the intellectual property owners around 20%). Six years ago, Lego licensing worked from the “physical world” to the “brick world.” External partners were primarily car manufacturers or entertainment studios lik Disney and Warner Bros., which resulted in some fun toys. For decades, however, Lego was fiercely protective of its brand, rarely allowing it on products it didn’t manufacture. Starting in 2020, this strategy flipped. Lego began aggressively pursuing “lifestyle partnerships” to make the brand a status symbol for adults in fashion and home decor rather than just a toy for kids. From that point on, Lego has been launching collaborations with Adidas, Levi’s, Ikea, Nike, Target (with products for pets too!), Moleskine, Concept One, Hype, and even Pottery Barn. I’m sure I’m missing some. I find the latest collab with Crocs to be particularly offensive, and the news drove me over the edge when it popped up in my social media feeds in late January. The Lego Brick Clog features a molded brick design on the midsole. There’s nothing else to it. It just looks dumb. Given its shape and giant size, it could serve as a bento box, one can only imagine. It’s possible this is a “me” problem. Maybe others don’t notice or don’t care. But theres a danger of being so overexposed, everywhere. Maybe you need to slow it down a bit, Lego. Not everything has to be AWESOME all the bloody time.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||