Hily's Anti-AI Bet: A Genuine Shift or Just Clever Marketing?

June 5, 2026·6 min read

69% of Gen Z and 74% of Millennials believe AI makes dating less authentic, according to Hily's August 2025 survey of 1,559 U.S. daters
Despite rejecting AI in principle, 51% of women and 52% of men have used AI to write bios or conversation starters
Match Group and Bumble continue aggressive AI integration whilst smaller rival Hily positions itself as the anti-AI alternative
54% of young women and 63% of young men say they'd find matches less attractive if AI wrote their profiles or messages

Match Group and Bumble are racing to layer AI across their products, betting on efficiency and Wall Street approval. Hily has just planted a flag in the opposite direction, launching what it calls 'human intelligence' features and positioning itself against the AI wave that's swept dating apps over the past 18 months. The small operator is gambling that singles are ready to reject the bots they claim to hate—even if they're still quietly using them to write their opening lines.

According to Hily's August 2025 T.R.U.T.H. Report, 69% of Gen Z and 74% of Millennials believe AI makes dating less authentic. More than half of young women and nearly two-thirds of young men said they'd find a match less attractive if they suspected AI had written the profile or messages. That sounds like a mandate for authenticity.

Until you read the next paragraph of the same report, which shows that 51% of women and 50% of Gen Z have used AI to write their bios, whilst 52% of men and 47% of Millennials have leaned on it for conversation starters. The disconnect is stark, and it tells you everything about where dating tech finds itself right now.

Create a free account

Unlock unlimited access and get the weekly briefing delivered to your inbox.

The DII Take

Hily has spotted a real tension, but it's unclear whether they've found a business model or just a marketing angle. The contradiction in user behaviour—rejecting AI in principle whilst adopting it in practice—doesn't suggest a groundswell of demand for "human intelligence" features. It suggests cognitive dissonance, which is harder to monetise.

The real question is whether Hily can convert philosophical unease into subscriber growth, or whether this is simply strategic positioning from a smaller operator looking for differentiation in a market where MTCH and BMBL own the playbook.

The AI paradox: rejection as brand strategy

Hily's pivot comes at a moment when AI integration has become table stakes for major platforms. Tinder introduced AI-powered photo selection and conversation prompts in late 2024. Bumble expanded its AI matching features earlier this year, touting personalisation gains in its Q1 earnings call. Hinge has experimented with AI-generated date ideas.

For Match Group and Bumble, AI is the efficiency play that Wall Street wants to see—a lever to improve engagement without hiring more moderators or product managers. Hily's counter-positioning is conceptually interesting but conveniently vague.

Chief product officer Liubomyr Pivtorak told Mashable the company would use technology 'where beneficial' but wouldn't replace 'core human elements of connection'

That stance aligns with what dating coach Julie Nguyen described as the risk of AI diminishing 'intuitive learning and personal growth' from authentic interactions. But what counts as beneficial? Where's the line between augmentation and replacement? And crucially, is Hily actually stripping AI out of its stack, or just choosing not to talk about the parts that remain?

Two people meeting for a date at coffee shop

The T.R.U.T.H. Report doesn't clarify whether the 1,559 respondents were representative of the broader U.S. dating market or self-selected from Hily's existing user base. If the latter, the findings may reflect the attitudes of people already inclined toward Hily's positioning—a useful data point for product teams, but not evidence of a mass-market shift. The company has clear commercial motivation to frame AI scepticism as a user mandate rather than a brand differentiation tactic.

What users say versus what they do

The behaviour-belief gap in Hily's data is the real story. Daters say they want authenticity, then turn to ChatGPT to write their 'spontaneous' opening message. They claim they'd be turned off by AI-generated profiles whilst simultaneously outsourcing their own bios to text generators.

This isn't hypocrisy—it's the classic tragedy of the commons. Everyone wants to match with a real person. Nobody wants to be the one putting in the work.

That dynamic plays directly into the hands of platforms offering AI as a convenience layer. If half your potential matches are using AI to polish their profiles, you're at a disadvantage if you don't. The arms race logic is inescapable, and it's why MTCH and BMBL are leaning in rather than pulling back.

Singles experiencing 'dating app fatigue' are exhausted by endless swiping, low reply rates, and matches that fizzle—AI promises to solve some of those friction points, whilst removing it risks making the experience feel even more effortful

Hily's argument is that this arms race erodes the entire premise of online dating: the possibility of genuine human connection. That's philosophically sound. Whether it's commercially viable is another matter. The term 'dating app fatigue' has appeared in seven BMBL earnings transcripts since 2022, and AI promises to solve friction points that removing it might worsen.

Market positioning or actual product shift?

Smaller platforms have successfully differentiated on values before. Feeld carved out a niche by leaning into non-monogamy and sexual exploration when Tinder was still pretending to be about finding your soulmate. Thursday built a brand around once-a-week dating to counter swipe fatigue. Both found audiences, though neither threatened MTCH's market share.

Hily's challenge is that 'human intelligence' is fuzzier as a product proposition than Feeld's sex-positivity or Thursday's scarcity model. It's a philosophical stance dressed up as a feature set, and philosophy doesn't always translate to DAU growth. The company will need to demonstrate that its approach produces measurably better outcomes—higher reply rates, longer conversations, more dates—or risk being seen as the app that made dating harder in the name of authenticity.

The broader industry will be watching to see whether Hily's positioning attracts a meaningful cohort of AI-sceptic singles, or whether users continue to vote with their behaviour rather than their survey responses. Research shows that 53% of Gen Zers and 66% of millennials say they'd feel less confident on a real-life date after using AI to craft their messages—yet another layer to the authenticity paradox these platforms must navigate.

If the former, expect MTCH and BMBL to quietly introduce 'authentic mode' toggles within six months. If the latter, Hily may find itself defending a brand position that nobody actually wants to adopt.

Either way, the AI authenticity paradox isn't going away. Dating operators are caught between what users say they value and what they actually use, and no amount of 'human intelligence' branding will resolve that tension. The platforms that succeed will be the ones that acknowledge the contradiction rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

Watch whether Hily's anti-AI positioning translates to measurable user growth and engagement metrics—philosophical differentiation only matters if it moves DAU numbers
The behaviour-belief gap represents the central challenge for all dating platforms: users reject AI in surveys but adopt it in practice, creating an arms race no single operator can defuse
Expect Match Group and Bumble to test 'authentic mode' features if Hily gains traction, whilst continuing to integrate AI across their core product stacks—the majors can afford to hedge both directions