The 2 a.m. AI interview is how companies stopped interviewing back

Last month, a job candidate experienced a 2 a.m. AI interview. The interviewer was an AI avatar and a countdown timer, with no human presence. The interview took place in an empty room. The convenience pitch for this type of interview is that it offers a time advantage for employed candidates, those in different time zones, or those with family commitments.

CodeSignal found that one-third of candidates complete their AI interviews outside regular business hours, while 25% of Ribbon AI interviews are scheduled between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. local time. For manufacturing clients, this number rises to 35%. Companies argue that this flexibility is beneficial for both candidates and employers, as candidates can start an interview the moment they apply, and employers can identify talent before their competitors.

However, the real issue with AI interviews is that they are a one-sided test, stripping candidates of the ability to ask questions and assess the company's response. The AI-generated character prevents candidates from observing the interviewer's body language or reading their face for the truth behind the answers. This lack of human interaction makes the hiring process imbalanced, as companies have mechanisms to measure candidates, while candidates have no means to measure the companies.

A report surveyed nearly 3,000 U.S. job seekers and found that more than a third (38%) have dropped out of an application process because they learned AI would be used. Twelve percent of respondents said they would automatically reject an interview if AI was involved. The most common reason for leaving was the use of pre-recorded video interviews scored by AI with no human present, at 33%.

Additionally, 70% of candidates reported never being explicitly informed in advance that their evaluation would be done by an AI. This lack of transparency adds to the unease surrounding AI-driven initial interviews.

The author emphasizes that while they are not anti-AI, they are anti-ambush. They spent a day working with AI and believe that the intention behind the first round of an interview should be mutual assessment. If a company is not willing to have a human interaction before the candidate invests time, it raises questions about the company's commitment to fair treatment.

The author argues that such a format indicates a power imbalance and is not respectful to candidates. They conclude that anyone with an ounce of common sense would walk away from an AI interview requiring a 2 a.m. time slot, as it shows a lack of respect for the candidate's time and well-being.