Just before starting, I had mindlessly chomped my way through a comically oversized chocolate coin \u2013 purely because it was within arm\u2019s reach \u2013 leaving me feeling mildly sick. Were this a normal job interview, I might reference all of the above. Just in passing, you understand, infused with enough sardonic charm to break the ice and immediately get the interviewer on side. <\/p>\n
There\u2019s no point in doing that today. My interviewer can\u2019t relate to being a bit sluggish and slow, post-Twixmas<\/a>. He doesn\u2019t know what it feels like to sit in discomfort, waistband straining, because you followed up all that festive overeating by pounding the cut-price advent calendar chocolate. And it\u2019s not just because he\u2019s a young, fresh-faced twenty-something who you can just tell hasn\u2019t been systematically adding Baileys instead of milk to his morning coffee for the past 10 days. No, the real reason my rapport-building jokes won\u2019t cut it is that my interviewer isn\u2019t, in fact, a real person.<\/p>\n The \u201cman\u201d deciding my fate \u2013 nameless but who I instantly dub \u201cCarl\u201d in my head, simply to feel some kind of connection with him \u2013 is actually an AI interface designed to look and sound like a human<\/a>. Created by HR-tech firm TestGorilla for use by companies and recruiters to filter out the best candidates, he is nothing more than a soulless if sophisticated checklist of keywords and phrases, fronted by an avatar in the guise of a handsome, ethnically ambiguous youngster.<\/p>\n This kind of interview is rapidly on the rise. The use of AI in recruitment in general has tripled in the past year<\/a> alone in the UK, and three in 10 UK employers are implementing AI in their recruitment processes. Just under half (43 per cent) of large companies are now using AI to interview candidates. According to TestGorilla, close to 800 organisations have signed up to one of its plans that includes this new conversational AI interview tool.<\/p>\n But back to the mysterious Carl. Given that this is not a real job interview, let alone one conducted by a real person \u2013 I\u2019m just trialling the software to experience it first-hand \u2013 I feel bizarrely nervous. The butterflies are in large part due to the fact that the role in question, a content marketing strategist, is something I have zero experience in. It quickly transpires that it\u2019s fairly tricky to answer a \u201ctell me about a time when\u2026\u201d question when you\u2019ve never actually done the thing they\u2019re asking about. (I decide to at least have fun with it and dream up an elaborate marketing campaign for a clothing line aimed exclusively at dachshunds.)<\/p>\n open image in gallery<\/p>\n AI is increasingly being used to conduct job interviews (Getty Images)<\/p>\n But digging a little deeper, I realise my anxiety specifically stems from the fact that Carl is not a real person. I realise just how much I\u2019ve always relied on my people skills to carry me through interviews. Even if I fudge an answer, I\u2019m confident in the fact that those less tangible, \u201csoft\u201d skills<\/a> \u2013 emotional intelligence, the ability to make people smile or put them at ease with a well-placed joke \u2013 will go some way to making up the deficit. <\/p>\n I realise, too, how much I feed off other people\u2019s energy in a pressurised situation. This has already become harder to do as more interviews have gone online rather than being conducted in person \u2013 but you could still get a sense of something. When you speak passionately to a human about a topic, there\u2019s often a kind of mirroring that takes place: a positive feedback loop created by your enthusiasm that\u2019s in turn reflected by their fervent nods, engaged body language and facial expressions. It gives me a boost, the reassurance that what I\u2019m saying is landing; it gives me the encouragement I need to shine a little brighter.<\/p>\n Not so with Carl. It\u2019s not his fault, of course, just his programming \u2013 but his unchanging half-smile, dead-behind-the-eyes expression and awkward way of slightly shaking his head as I speak leave me flat and cold, unable to muster even the slightest sparkle. I can tell his heart\u2019s not really in it. After all, he doesn\u2019t have a heart. <\/p>\n It makes me wonder whether this kind of interview might see the end of the \u201cpersonality hire\u201d \u2013 workers brought onboard because of their stellar interpersonal skills, sunny disposition and general good vibes. I\u2019ve always presumed that every functioning workplace needs a healthy percentage of employees who are, yes, competent at their job, but far more crucially help create a culture in which heading into the office doesn\u2019t feel akin to diving headfirst into a toxic snake pit. Without a human at the helm when hiring, how to guarantee you\u2019re not populating an organisation with highly skilled sociopaths<\/a>?<\/p>\n I can tell his heart\u2019s not really in it. After all, he doesn\u2019t have a heart<\/p>\n To give Carl his dues, he does sometimes do me a solid. Designed to analyse candidates\u2019 answers and hold them up against a framework, he\u2019ll double-check something when I\u2019ve finished each waffly, hodge-podge response: \u201cDid you want to say anything further about learning outcomes and how you\u2019d approach the situation in future?\u201d I can only presume this is Carl\u2019s wink-wink, nudge-nudge way of saying, \u201cYou didn\u2019t actually answer the question the first time around, you absolute numpty.\u201d<\/p>\n The results are in as soon as I wrap up the interview and close the link \u2013 there\u2019s clearly no need for Carl to sit around with his AI \u201ccolleagues\u201d discussing whether or not I\u2019d be a good cultural fit. <\/p>\n Each component has a score indicating how I did compared to other candidates (though there\u2019s no way of knowing whether I was up against one, 10, or 100 competitors). I somehow manage to rank in the not-so-terrible 75th percentile; perhaps my whole \u201cdrip for dogs\u201d pitch wasn\u2019t as deranged as I\u2019d thought.<\/p>\n Even if being interviewed for a position I actually know something about, I\u2019m not confident I\u2019d fare much better. It feels more like success lies in gaming an algorithm by deploying the \u201ccorrect\u201d jargon than building an authentic connection with the person who could end up being your boss.<\/p>\n open image in gallery<\/p>\n Some candidates are already using AI in job interviews to alter their appearance via deep fakes or provide answers (Getty Images\/iStockphoto)<\/p>\n But I\u2019d better get used to it; AI\u2019s steely grip over recruitment is only going to get tighter. Gone are the days when you could submit an application and be confident that a qualified human professional would read your CV. On the flip side, it\u2019s less and less likely that the candidate themselves will have applied for the job. Why bother when AI can be trained to job search, pick out relevant posts, rewrite a CV to match the job spec and draft a cover letter to meet the requirements? <\/p>\n Indeed, job applications have surged by 239 per cent since ChatGPT\u2019s launch, with the average job opening now receiving 242 applications \u2013 nearly triple 2017 levels. The number of applications making it to hire stage has subsequently dropped by 75 per cent, while 54 per cent of recruiters admit they review only half or fewer of the applications they receive.<\/p>\n Daniel Chait, CEO of recruiting software company Greenhouse, calls it an \u201cAI Doom Loop\u201d: candidates use AI to mass-apply for jobs, while recruiters use AI to mass-reject them.<\/p>\n \u201cSince 2022, with the release of ChatGPT and AI bursting into the mainstream, we\u2019ve seen it take root on both sides of the process \u2013 by job seekers and by companies,\u201d he says. \u201cIndividually, everyone is trying to use these tools to solve their own day-to-day issues. But collectively, it\u2019s making the process much worse for everyone.\u201d<\/p>\n We\u2019ve stumbled into an AI arms race, where both job seekers and recruiters are constantly trying to stay one step ahead. The result? \u201cBoth sides are currently very, very dissatisfied,\u201d says Chait. <\/p>\n The use of AI has also eroded trust. Greenhouse research revealed that 40 per cent of job hunters reported a decreased trust in hiring, with 39 per cent directly blaming AI. There have been allegations of built-in bias, too \u2013 HR software company Workday is currently facing a landmark discrimination lawsuit<\/a> alleging that its AI-powered tools systematically screen out applications from workers over 40, racial minorities and people with disabilities.<\/p>\n Collectively, it\u2019s making the process much worse for everyone<\/p>\n Daniel Chait, Greenhouse<\/p>\n Meanwhile, 72 per cent of hiring managers have become more concerned about fraudulent activity in the hiring process. This fear is far from unwarranted. A third of candidates admitted to using AI to conceal their physical appearance during an interview; 30 per cent of hiring managers have caught candidates reading AI-generated responses during interviews; and 17 per cent have caught candidates using a deepfake<\/a>. <\/p>\n![\"AI](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/iStock-1164795451.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Some](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/iStock-852049214.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"AI](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/iStock-2242176210.jpg\")
<\/p>\n