After Koi Suru AI launched, can romance training really save time?

Tapple, a Japanese dating app developer, has launched Koi Suru AI, an electronic romance product positioned as a “love training” tool. Based on its public release materials and related social-platform discussions, the core is an AI companion set to be 22 years old.

When I started it up on Saturday afternoon, my first thought was not romance but time budgeting. For office workers, a full weekly social window can feel as scarce as getting tickets for a popular weekend movie slot. The system supports personalized customization of looks and personality, and it learns your chat habits and daily routine. In terms of companionship efficiency, that mechanism is genuinely strong. Your communication cost becomes more controllable, almost like pre-ordering takeout and eating right on schedule.

Still, Tapple frames it as “love training,” with the goal of helping young people in Japan regain confidence in real-world dating and even addressing the low birth rate, so this narrative is naturally examined more closely. Training in relationships is not only about holding a conversation; it is also about handling uncertainty and friction in real interactions. An AI companion is controllable, smooth, and accommodating, while real people do not follow scripts. If someone stays immersed in low-resistance interaction for too long, frustration may become even stronger when they return to real social situations.

This is also where overseas criticism is focused: idealized virtual relationships may push people farther from reality. The concern is concrete. If you are used to always taking the shortest route with navigation, then suddenly have to walk blind in an unfamiliar neighborhood, the psychological gap is huge. AI may teach an opening line, but it may not teach you how to handle being left on read. It is like a treadmill in a gym: useful for conditioning, but still different from a real uphill climb.

From a cost-performance perspective, my practical advice for office workers is to treat it as a social warm-up tool, not an emotional destination. If you usually struggle to start conversations or often let chats go cold, use it for three to four weeks and focus on expression and listening rhythm; that can save more time than forcing awkward conversations head-on. But once you can already communicate steadily offline, continued heavy use will see marginal returns drop quickly, like overpaying for a membership you only use once on weekends.

Looking at the trend, products like this will most likely become more common, especially with a “companionship + training + personalization” pitch. What truly determines their value is not whether AI can deliver sweet talk, but whether it can push users back toward real relationships. For people with limited time, the most efficient path remains the same: use tools first to lower the barrier, then spend the skills you build on real human connections. Otherwise, it is easy to spend your weekend prime time in a simulation that never logs off.