Nearly half of UK job seekers have now experienced an AI-led interview. 30% walked away from a hiring process because of it. Some described feeling “humiliated”. Others simply felt unheard.
It raises a question we think about a lot: where does AI genuinely improve the hiring experience, and where does it get in the way of it?
There’s a strong case for it. Application volumes are at record highs, teams are stretched, and the administrative side of hiring has never been more demanding. AI can screen faster, reduce certain types of bias in early shortlisting, and free up recruiters to spend more time on the conversations that actually matter. For many businesses, it’s made a real difference to capacity and speed. Used well, it’s a genuine asset, and we see that every day.
But interviews might be different. They’ve always been two-way. Candidates are evaluating you just as much as you’re evaluating them, sizing up the culture, the people, whether this is somewhere they actually want to be. So when AI removes that dynamic entirely, no questions back, no reading the room, no human on the other side, is something important lost? And if the best candidates have options, how much does that experience shape their decision?
The people quoted in the Guardian piece aren’t fringe cases. One candidate noted he couldn’t ask a single question back. Another wasn’t sure whether anyone had even watched her interview. A third described the format as particularly difficult given the way his brain works. These aren’t complaints about technology for its own sake. They’re pointing at something more specific: the feeling of not being seen as a person in a process that’s supposed to be about exactly that.
None of which means AI has no place in interviews. Some roles and contexts suit it well, and plenty of candidates are entirely comfortable with it. The experience probably varies hugely depending on the role, the seniority level, and the individual. What works for a high-volume graduate scheme may feel very different for a senior hire where relationship and fit matter just as much as credentials.
Maybe the question worth asking isn’t “should we use AI?” but “at which points in the process does it genuinely add value, and at which points does it cost us something?” Getting that balance right takes thought, and it probably looks different for every organisation. But given that 30% of candidates are already walking away, it seems like a conversation worth having.