How Awkward the Experience Is
The reporter's on-the-scene account is vivid: you answer the AI's questions to a screen, and it has no expression, no feedback, and won't follow up on your answers; you don't know what the other end of the lens is evaluating—content, tone, or micro-expressions. A human interview, however bad, is still two-way communication, whereas an AI interview puts the candidate inside a one-way black box: you're performing, but you don't know who the audience is or by what standard you're being scored. This asymmetry brings not efficiency but the discomfort of being objectified.
The Cost of Automating Hiring
Companies' reason for using AI interviews is cost and scale: there are too many résumés to screen, so let the machine take a first pass. But the costs are surfacing: candidates' experience is sacrificed, the employer brand takes a hit, and the fairness of AI evaluation is deeply in doubt—accent, speaking speed, and expression style can all be treated by the algorithm as implicit disqualifying signals, packaging bias as an objective score. Both sides of hiring are actually stuck in the same vicious cycle: employers use AI to screen people, candidates use AI to prep, and both perform to a machine, while real human-to-human judgment disappears. This story is a vivid slice of that cycle.
via: Hacker News