In 2018, an engineer from San Francisco named Jake wrote an algorithm that changed his life. Not for a startup, not for money. He was just tired of Tinder. Hundreds of matches, dozens of dates, not one he wanted to see again. Jake sat down and wrote a program that analyzed his own visual preferences. Two weeks later, the algorithm suggested a profile of a woman he ended up living with for three years. This story isn’t about magic. It’s about how data science works when applied to the most human of all tasks.
How a neural network sees what you don’t
When you rate photos in a dating app, you think you’re in charge. You look, you evaluate, you decide. But the truth is, your brain makes a decision in 300 milliseconds. That’s less than the time it takes to blink. The rest of the time, your brain retroactively invents justifications for the decision your subconscious already made.
A neural network works differently. It doesn’t make hasty decisions. It doesn’t analyze just one photo, but a hundred. It finds patterns you don’t even suspect in yourself. Maybe you’re attracted to people with a certain eye shape. Or you unconsciously gravitate toward those who share similar facial features to yours. You don’t see it—the neural network does.
Professor Michael Kosinski from Stanford, known for his work on digital footprints, conducted a large-scale study in 2024. His team trained a neural network on the visual preferences of several thousand people, then tested the accuracy of its predictions. The result: 78 percent accuracy. Compared to 34 percent for random matching. A difference of 2.3 times. And that’s only on visual data—without considering interests, values, or personality.
The 128-dimensional space of your attractiveness
Technically, it looks like this: each face you rate becomes a point in 128-dimensional space. No, that’s not a metaphor. FaceNet—a neural network published by Google in 2015 with 99.63 percent accuracy—converts an image into a numerical vector. Your brain does the same thing; you just don’t know how to describe it.
The difference between you and the neural network is one thing: it remembers every decision you make. Every rating. Every profile you lingered on for half a second longer than usual. Every photo you zoomed in to examine details. You don’t remember that. Your consciousness filters and distorts subconscious signals, fitting them into socially acceptable patterns. The neural network doesn’t filter.
That’s why algorithmic matching is often more accurate than intuitive matching. Not because algorithms are smarter. But because they are more honest. They aren’t embarrassed that you like types that aren’t conventionally considered attractive. They don’t care that you’re ashamed of your true preferences. They just work with data.
Why 78 percent is the limit
78 percent isn’t magic. It’s the accuracy limit for the current generation of algorithms that work only with visual data. The next step is incorporating behavioral patterns, communication style, and value orientations. When systems learn to analyze not only how you look but also how you communicate, accuracy will rise to 90 percent and above.
Unison is already doing this: their algorithm considers not only visual preferences but also thousands of other parameters—from writing style to decision-making patterns. The result: a conversion rate to real meetings of over 20 percent. For comparison, Tinder’s is about 5 percent.
So does AI choose a partner for us?
No, it doesn’t choose. It filters. And that’s a huge difference. Imagine you’re looking for a needle in a haystack. AI doesn’t say: here’s your needle. It says: here are ten straws among which your needle is most likely. Instead of going through the whole stack, check these. Everything else is up to you.
MIT professor Sandra Wachter, a specialist in human-computer interaction, puts it this way: technology doesn’t replace human decision. It compresses the search space. Instead of a thousand options, of which 98 percent are obviously incompatible, the algorithm shows you ten, of which 80 percent have real potential. The time saved isn’t measured in hours—it’s measured in months of life.
The future: from quantity to quality
Venture fund Andreessen Horowitz, which invested $20 million in an AI dating startup in 2023, formulated its strategy like this: we’re not investing in technology, but in bringing back human connection. It sounds paradoxical, but there’s deep logic in it.
Today’s dating apps make money off your loneliness. The longer you search, the more they earn. That’s a conflict of interest that doesn’t exist in the quality-matching model. When an app earns from successful matches rather than time spent inside, its goals align with yours. And that changes everything.
Jake, who started this story, never turned his code into a startup. When asked why, he shrugs: I wrote it for myself. But this engineer from San Francisco, without knowing it, turned an industry worth more than five billion dollars upside down. His algorithm still works today—he just doesn’t know about it.
Read also: AI compatibility, photo match, ethics of AI dating