I’ve been unemployed for a year and a half, for the second time in a decade. That is, in the last ten years, I was laid off for 3 of them. When you’re laid off for awhile, interviews matter- but don’t act like it, right? I mean, you want to help that company be the next fortune 5 company, not make money to eat and pay off that growing credit card debt.

I work in tech. I’m trying to transition from BA/BPE/PM/Program analyst roles (crappy operational stuff) into an AI version of that (crappy AI operational stuff). To do so, I’ve built some incredible shit stuff. I’m proud of it because it’s what I wished the slow moving but arrogantly confident places I worked in had. At least half of it wasn’t technically possible two years ago.

So, I’m in the job market like everyone else. I have so many rejections I can’t even count them, and I don’t. I remain positive. The interviews are far and few between. I target things I know I’d do well (no shotgun blast application approach). The roles are opening up, but I know it’ll take awhile for the same slow companies to start bringing in people with my skills.

And today, I have my first real AI bot interview. It informs me it’s just a quick screening- not a serious, in-depth interview. It starts off with easy HR stuff (e.g. are you eligible to work in the US?), but then starts diving into very specific, detailed stuff hard, over and over.

It’s the first interview I ever walked out of (well, clicked out of).

I was going to write a LinkedIn article about it, but I know how that goes. You write something that either goes into the void of too many people talking at once (see: LinkedIn Lunatics sub), or it puts up a flair, ‘guy can’t hack it and bitches about it to the world- do not hire’.

So I figured I’d bitch about it here and share some insight, if we’ll be generous enough to call it that.

  1. If candidates use AI to sharpen their resume, they’re “cheating.” If they reference notes during an AI screening, they’re “unprepared.” If they admit they used an AI tool to draft their cover letter, some hiring managers move them to the bottom of the pile, if they even get past the damned ATS. But if a company uses it, they’re just embracing tech progress. We all know the double standard.

  2. If a candidate uses AI to craft perfect answers, companies ask themselves how they would know they’re hiring the person and not the tool? But, most jobs don’t require performing without tools. They require judgment, problem-solving, communication, and results. They require knowing when to use a tool and how to use it well.

We don’t penalize candidates for practicing answers. We don’t call it cheating when someone brings a portfolio. We don’t question authenticity because someone used spell-check on their cover letter. How is it any different?

  1. The Superman problem. Imagine that tomorrow, everyone on earth gains access to a supersuit. Cheap, available, easy to use. It lets you fly, stop bullets, lift impossible weight. Everyone has one. Everyone knows everyone has one. Do we start designing obstacle courses that prohibit the suit? Do we evaluate candidates by making them run on foot while our recruiters fly overhead? AI is the supersuit. It’s asinine to pretend it’s not there on either side. Maybe companies could start asking better questions — like where do you choose to fly, and why? (if we’re sticking with the supersuit analogy).

And what’s all this for? Why have we let it turn into this? It seems fucking crazy to me that I feel like I’m in a world where you need a Ph. D in interviewing. Will candidates have to have their own damned AI agent (bot) to do interviews? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet some asshole is building it. Maybe I’ll be that asshole- I do know how to build shit.