AI Interviewed the Candidate. A Human Felt Sad.

Our true colours can't be found by AI they are seen by the human heart

They knew what they were building. It was their job.

‘Aha, the candidate cheated,’ he said, almost gleefully. There was a sense of triumph in his voice. Like a goal had been achieved.

The company uses AI to interview candidates. A dialogue of sorts. Questions asked by a machine to a person, to decide if the person is worthy to meet another person. They even built a tool to track keyboard activity. Was the candidate really answering the questions? Or was AI answering the AI?

As I read that story, my heart began to pound. A sadness rose up. It felt alien. And yet, I have no doubt this is the future. But is this the future we want?

Apparently there were 932 applicants. I understand. That takes time. Effort. Energy. But people are the company. Every hire matters. No matter the role. No matter the level. Bringing someone new into the organization changes the whole tapestry. For the candidate, it matters too. A job is not just a paycheck. It’s a place where they pour their energy, time, care. It becomes part of their life story.

Does it make sense to use AI? I can see the appeal. The company VidCruiter describe AI-led interviews like this: "The AI may decide whether a candidate moves forward in the hiring process without any human review."

That saves time. That creates convenience. That allows interviews at night, across time zones, for candidates who are working during the day. That matters.

Still, I wonder: is this a smart use of AI?

Can it truly see the person? Their spark, their energy, their way of thinking and seeing the world differently? Will it see the Unicorn?

And what happens when candidates learn how to play the AI? When AI-written answers are fed to AI-led interviews, does anyone actually show up real anymore?

Then again, I’ve sat in interviews where humans dismissed great candidates for strange reasons. Too nervous. Too long-winded. Not how I would have solved the problem. And of course, the unconscious biases — of names, accents, skin color, gender, age — they slip in quietly and influence.

So maybe, sometimes, AI is fairer?

From the candidate's side, there's another loss. Interviews are more than screenings. They're a window into the culture. The people. The vibe. Speaking to a bot doesn't show any of that. It might even send a message: we don't have time to talk to you. Not yet.

But I hear the stories, written all over LinkedIn. People apply only to hear nothing. How many companies ghost candidates completely? Maybe an AI interview is better than silence.

There are so many layers to this. No clear answers. A perfect place for thoughtful testing. What works better: human-only or AI-only? And how do we define "better"?

Still, the sadness lingers. Handing off this part of the process to machines feels like letting go of something sacred. It makes the words "we value our people" ring hollow.

If we desire to use AI in hiring, it requires deep thinking and reflection to be done by humans. For in the end, it is us humans who come together to create a company.