AI makes remote interviews easier for job seekers, but harder for employers

Dubai: A polished résumé and a confident interview were once among the strongest signals that a candidate was ready for the job. That assumption is now under growing pressure as artificial intelligence becomes deeply embedded in the hiring process.

Companies worldwide see a rise in candidates using generative AI to write résumés, complete assessments and even receive live prompts during video interviews. The result, hiring experts say, is making it harder to distinguish genuine ability from AI-assisted performance, forcing employers to rethink recruitment from the ground up.

The concern extends well beyond isolated incidents. Research cited by Harvard Business Review argues that the earliest stages of recruitment are becoming unreliable because both written applications and remote interviews can now be heavily influenced by AI.

When those filters stop accurately identifying talent, companies risk hiring candidates who perform well during recruitment rather than those best equipped to do the job.

One hiring manager interviewed by Bloomberg Businessweek believed she had found an ideal candidate for a grant-writing role after a strong virtual interview.

Within weeks of hiring him, she concluded he lacked the skills demonstrated during the interview. Looking back, she suspected he had been consulting ChatGPT or another chatbot throughout the virtual interview after noticing generic responses, language resembling the organisation’s own website and unusually structured answers.

Human resources advisers say similar stories are becoming increasingly common.

According to survey data from US-based research and advisory firm Gartner, nearly half of job applicants now use AI somewhere during their job search. While many use it for legitimate purposes such as improving résumés or drafting cover letters, others rely on AI to generate writing samples, answer online assessments or provide real-time responses during interviews. About 13% acknowledged using chatbots live during interviews.

The challenge starts before candidates even reach an interview. AI has dramatically reduced the value of traditional résumés because applicants can quickly generate polished, keyword-rich documents tailored to specific roles.

Harvard Business Review also highlights how AI-powered résumé screening systems may favour applications written in styles similar to their own outputs, potentially rewarding candidates who optimise documents with AI rather than those with stronger qualifications.

Recruiters interviewed for the study described an increasing gap between applicants’ written profiles and their ability to explain their own experience during interviews.

Poor hiring decisions carry significant financial consequences. Bloomberg Businessweek cites data from the Society for Human Resource Management showing that filling a role costs about $1,300 before accounting for onboarding expenses, lost productivity and replacement costs if the hire fails.

Harvard Business Review points to higher overall estimates, citing SHRM data showing average hiring costs of $5,475 for non-executive positions and nearly $36,000 for executive roles. Gallup estimates replacing an employee can cost between one-and-a-half and two times that person’s annual salary.

The larger concern, the article argues, is that weakening recruitment filters reduce confidence that organisations are consistently identifying the best talent.

Some employers have already begun redesigning their hiring processes. Google has added face-to-face interview rounds for software engineering candidates to verify core skills.

L’Oréal has designated interviews as an “AI-free zone” and requires at least one in-person interview. Anthropic also prohibits AI during live interviews and take-home evaluations unless explicitly authorised.

Others are introducing live coding exercises, requiring candidates to share their screens or replacing take-home assessments that have become easier to complete with AI assistance.

Companies including Google and McKinsey have reintroduced in-person interviews despite the added travel costs, reflecting growing concern over AI-assisted recruitment.

The debate is becoming more nuanced because AI is also increasingly part of everyday work.

Some candidates argue that if employers expect workers to use AI after being hired, using it during recruitment simply demonstrates how they would perform on the job.

Harvard Business Review suggests organisations should distinguish between verifying a candidate’s independent reasoning and evaluating how effectively they use AI.

It points to Meta’s testing of AI-enabled coding interviews that allow candidates to use AI tools, arguing that future recruitment may focus less on working without AI and more on exercising sound judgment while using it.

Rather than relying on standard behavioural questions, Harvard Business Review recommends more adaptive interviews that force candidates to explain trade-offs, respond to changing scenarios and demonstrate reasoning in real time.

Its analysis found candidates with modest résumés often performed exceptionally well in these dynamic interviews, while some applicants with stronger credentials struggled once conversations moved beyond scripted answers.

The publication argues that interviews should increasingly reward critical thinking, problem-solving and intellectual honesty instead of polished, rehearsed responses that AI can easily generate. For employers, the challenge is no longer simply detecting AI use.

As generative AI becomes a permanent part of working life, recruitment is shifting from measuring how well candidates present themselves to assessing whether they can think independently, apply judgment and use AI as a tool rather than a substitute for their own abilities. - Agencies