Cookiy Research · Dating App Users 18–35 · 12 Interviews · April 2026

They want help.
They won't outsource voice.

Twelve dating-app users told us where AI could help and where it could not. The line runs through authenticity — suggestions yes, autonomous messages no.

11 of 12 refuse AI sending messages on their behalf
a young adult holding a phone on a couch with a slight smile, looking at a chat screen, editorial photograph with warm lamp light
a young adult holding a phone on a couch with a slight smile, looking at a chat screen, editorial photograph with warm lamp light
11/12REJECT AUTONOMOUS AI MESSAGING
10/12PAYWALL / DISCOVERY IS BIGGER PAIN
9/12WANT HELP WITH OPENERS
8/12HAVE NEVER PAID FOR DATING
Dating-app users want AI as a coach, not a ghost-writer — suggestions and tone advice land, autonomous sending does not. The bigger pain most participants named was paywalled filters, fake profiles, and opaque algorithms, not message fatigue. Willingness to pay for an AI assistant sits in the £5–20 per month range, conditional on full control and transparent guardrails.
F01

Authenticity is non-negotiable: AI sending messages is a deal-breaker.

11 of 12 refused autonomous AI messaging. The rejection was not hypothetical — participants described specific discomfort at the idea that a match might be talking to a model, not to them. Language included 'disingenuous', 'lazy', 'takes all humanity out of it'.

"I would rather show who I am."— P01 · authenticity purist
F02

The bigger pain is discovery, not messaging.

10 of 12 named paywalled filters, fake profiles, or opaque algorithms as their dominant frustration. Message fatigue came up too, but second. When asked what they'd pay for, most pointed to verification and transparency before any AI feature.

"The more attractive men are hidden behind a paywall."— P12 · friction fighter
F03

The £5–20 / month band is where willingness-to-pay lives — for a few.

6 of 12 were willing to trial an AI assistant at £10–20 / month. P04 (£10) and P07 (£20) set the boundaries; 4 more sat in-between with 'maybe'. 8 of 12 had never paid for any dating service — they start from a sceptical baseline.

"I would pay ten pounds per month if it is handling the messages with care."— P04 · efficiency-seeker
F04

Opener and tone suggestions are the most credible use case.

9 of 12 saw value in AI suggesting personalised openers from profile data, or keeping a conversation alive mid-flow. The phrasing was consistent: 'help me start', 'feed me a topic', 'make sure I don't sound generic'. This is a coach role, not a ghostwriter role.

"If the AI can suggest an interesting topic mid conversation, not just to strike the conversation, but to keep it going, it would go a long way."— P11 · coach-seeker
F05

Control and transparency are the price of entry.

10 of 12 demanded explicit approval before any AI-drafted message left the app. Concerns included data misuse ('I wouldn't know if it's been shared'), impersonation risk, and privacy of message history. Participants wanted the AI visible — not a hidden layer.

"I need some control over the AI assistant before sending on my behalf."— P03 · friction fighter
If the AI can suggest an interesting topic mid conversation, it would go a long way. — P11 · coach-seeker

Four patterns, one workforce

3 of 12
The Authenticity Purist
Values personal effort and emotional honesty above all; reads AI help as deceptive.
4 of 12
The Pragmatic Efficiency-Seeker
Happy to use AI drafts as long as the approval step stays theirs.
3 of 12
The Friction Fighter
Primary pain is paywalls, fake profiles, and opaque filters — not conversation.
2 of 12
The Coach-Seeker
Actively wants AI to help with openers and mid-conversation topics.

They want the help. They won't outsource voice.

The AI dating product that wins is a visible co-pilot with verification upstream and a per-chat off-switch downstream.

Powered by Cookiy AI

The consumers in this report. You could talk to them.

Cookiy AI runs AI-moderated consumer interviews at scale — in hours, not weeks.

Learn more →