logo
Job interviews enter a strange new world with AI that talks back

Job interviews enter a strange new world with AI that talks back

The Star3 days ago

For better or worse, the next generation of job interviews has arrived: Employers are now rolling out artificial intelligence simulating live, two-way screener calls using synthetic voices.
Startups like Apriora, HeyMilo AI and Ribbon all say they're seeing swift adoption of their software for conducting real-time AI interviews over video. Job candidates converse with an AI "recruiter' that asks follow-up questions, probes key skills and delivers structured feedback to hiring managers. The idea is to make interviewing more efficient for companies – and more accessible for applicants – without requiring recruiters to be online around the clock.
"A year ago this idea seemed insane,' said Arsham Ghahramani, co-founder and chief executive officer of Ribbon, a Toronto-based AI recruiting startup that recently raised US$8.2mil (RM34.81mil) in a funding round led by Radical Ventures. "Now it's quite normalised.'
Employers are drawn to the time savings, especially if they're hiring at high volume and running hundreds of interviews a day. And job candidates – especially those in industries like trucking and nursing, where schedules are often irregular – may appreciate the ability to interview at odd hours, even if a majority of Americans polled last year by Consumer Reports said they were uncomfortable with the idea of algorithms grading their video interviews.
At Propel Impact, a Canadian social impact investing nonprofit, a shift to AI screener interviews came about because of the need to scale up the hiring process. The organisation had traditionally relied on written applications and alumni-conducted interviews to assess candidates. But with plans to bring on more than 300 fellows this year, that approach quickly became unsustainable.
At the same time, the rise of ChatGPT was diluting the value of written application materials. "They were all the same,' said Cheralyn Chok, Propel's co-founder and executive director. "Same syntax, same patterns.'
Technology allowing AI to converse with job candidates on a screen has been in the works for years. Companies like HireVue pioneered one-way, asynchronous video interviews in the early 2010s and later layered on automated scoring using facial expressions and language analysis – features that drew both interest and criticism. (The visual analysis was rolled back in 2020.) But those platforms largely left the experience static: candidates talking into a screen with no interaction, leaving recorded answers for a human to dissect after the fact.
It wasn't until the public release of large language models like ChatGPT in late 2022 that developers began to imagine – and build – something more dynamic. Ribbon was founded in 2023 and began selling its offering the following year. Ghahramani said the company signed nearly 400 customers in just eight months. HeyMilo and Apriora launched around the same time and also report fast growth, though each declined to share customer counts.
"The first year ChatGPT came out, recruiters weren't really down for this,' said HeyMilo CEO Sabashan Ragavan. "But the technology has gotten a lot better as time has gone on.'
Technical stumbles
Even so, the rollout hasn't been glitch-free. A handful of clips circulating on TikTok show interview bots repeating phrases or misinterpreting simple answers. One widely shared example involved an AI interviewer created by Apriora repeatedly saying the phrase "vertical bar pilates. .Aaron Wang, Apriora's co-founder and CEO, attributed the error to a voice model misreading the term "Pilates'. He said the issue was fixed promptly and emphasised that such cases are rare.
"We're not going to get it right every single time,' he said. "The incident rate is well under 0.001%.'
Chok said Propel Impact had also seen minor glitches, though it was unclear whether they stemmed from Ribbon itself or a candidate's WiFi connection. In those cases, the applicant was able to simply restart.
Braden Dennis, who has used chatbot technology to interview candidates for his AI-powered investment research startup FinChat, noted that AI sometimes struggles when candidates ask specific follow-up questions. "It is definitely a very one-sided conversation,' he said. "Especially when the candidate asks questions about the role. Those can be tricky to field from the AI.'
Startups providing the technology emphasised their approach to monitoring and support. HeyMilo maintains a 24/7 support team and automated alerts to detect issues like dropped connections or failed follow-ups. "Technology can fail,' Ragavan said, "but we've built systems to catch those corner cases.'
Ribbon has a similar protocol. Any time a candidate clicks a support button, an alert is triggered that notifies the CEO. "Interviews are high stakes,' Ghahramani said. "We take those issues really seriously.' And while the videos of glitches are a bad look for the sector, Ghahramani said he sees the TikToks making fun of the tools as a sign the technology is entering the mainstream.
Preparing job applicants
Candidates applying to FinChat, which uses Ribbon for its screener interviews, are notified up front that they'll be speaking to an AI and that the team is aware it may feel impersonal.
"We let them know when we send them the link to complete it that we know it is a bit dystopian and takes the 'human' out of human resources,' Dennis said. "That part is not lost on us.'
Still, he said, the asynchronous format helps widen the talent pool and ensures strong applicants aren't missed. "We have had a few folks drop out of the running once I sent them the AI link,' Dennis said. "At the end of the day, we are an AI company as well, so if that is a strong deterrent then that's OK.'
Propel Impact prepares candidates by communicating openly about its reasons for using AI in interviews, while hosting information sessions led by humans to maintain a sense of connection with candidates. "As long as companies continue to offer human touch points along the way, these tools are going to be seen far more frequently,' Chok said.
Regulators have taken notice. While AI interview tools in theory promise transparency and fairness, they could soon face more scrutiny over how they score candidates – and whether they reinforce bias at scale. Illinois now requires companies to disclose whether AI is analysing interview videos and to get candidates' consent, and New York City mandates annual bias audits for any automated hiring tools used by local employers.
Beyond screening calls
Though AI interviewing technology is mainly being used for initial screenings, Ribbon's Ghahramani said 15% of the interviews on its platform now happen beyond the screening stage, up from just 1% a few months ago. This suggests customers are using the technology in new ways.
Some employers are experimenting with AI interviews in which they can collect compensation expectations or feedback on the interview process – potentially awkward conversations that some candidates, and hiring managers, may prefer to see delegated to a bot.
In a few cases, AI interviews are being used for technical evaluations or even to replace second-round interviews with a human. "You can actually compress stages,' said Wang. "That first AI conversation can cover everything from 'Are you authorised to work here?' to fairly technical, domain-specific questions.'
Even as AI handles more of the hiring process, most companies selling the technology still view it as a tool for gathering information, not making the final call. "We don't believe that AI should be making the hiring decision,' Ragavan said. "It should just collect data to support that decision.' – Bloomberg

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US-China renewed dialogue seen lifting Malaysia's trade outlook
US-China renewed dialogue seen lifting Malaysia's trade outlook

New Straits Times

time37 minutes ago

  • New Straits Times

US-China renewed dialogue seen lifting Malaysia's trade outlook

KUALA LUMPUR: Renewed trade talks between the United States and China are expected to boost investor confidence and strengthen Malaysia's trade momentum, an economist said. Putra Business School economist Professor Dr Ahmed Razman Abdul Latiff said any move to reduce tariffs between the two economic giants could steady the sails for Malaysia by boosting confidence and trade visibility. "If the US and China agree to resume talks and reach a deal to reduce tariffs on each other, Malaysia's trade environment and investor sentiment will become less volatile and uncertain," he told Business Times. "This would boost investor confidence and encourage continued investment in Malaysia," Razman added, noting that while tensions persist, Malaysia is taking steps to shield its economy. Razman also expects Malaysia's export markets and supply chains to remain competitive, although growth may moderate slightly. This, he said, is supported by ongoing efforts to diversify export destinations, grow the country's trading partnerships and enhance intra-Asean trade. Should US-China negotiations break down again, he said the impact on Malaysia would likely remain limited. "There will be some negative impact but it will be minimum as majority of Malaysia's products such as semiconductor will not be subjected to higher tariffs by the US," he said. Trump and Xi held a 90-minute phone conversation on Thursday, marking their first direct dialogue since Trump resumed office. The call, widely viewed as a positive step towards easing the prolonged trade tensions between the world's two largest economies, laid the groundwork for renewed bilateral cooperation and the resumption of high-level trade negotiations. Both leaders agreed to restart trade talks, with senior US officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, expected to meet their Chinese counterparts. The timing and venue for these negotiations have yet to be finalised but are anticipated to be announced in the coming weeks. Although the call sparked market optimism, US stocks closed lower as a sharp decline in Tesla shares outweighed the positive momentum from progress in US-China tariff negotiations. Tesla shares plunged over 14 per cent in heavy trading as the escalating public feud between Trump and businessman Elon Musk rattled investors, wiping out about US$150 billion in market value. Razman downplayed concerns over the spat saying, "The impact on Malaysia will be minimal, as the fallout primarily affects the SpaceX program and Tesla production."

Human coders are still better than AI, says this expert developer
Human coders are still better than AI, says this expert developer

The Star

timean hour ago

  • The Star

Human coders are still better than AI, says this expert developer

Your team members may be tempted to rely on AI to help them write code for your company, either for cost or speed rationales or because they lack particular expertise. But you should be wary. — Pixabay In the complex 'will AI steal my job?' debate, software developers are among the workers most immediately at risk from powerful AI tools. It's certainly looking like the tech sector wants to reduce the number of humans working those jobs. Bold statements from the likes of Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and Anthropic's Dario Amodei support this since both of them say AI is already able to take over some code-writing roles. But a new blog post from a prominent coding expert strongly disputes their arguments, and supports some AI critics' position that AI really can't code. Salvatore Sanfilippo, an Italian developer who created Redis (an online database which calls itself the 'world's fastest data platform' and is beloved by coders building real-time apps), published a blog post this week, provocatively titled 'Human coders are still better than LLMs.' His title refers to large language model systems that power AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude. Sanfilippo said he's 'not anti-AI' and actually does 'use LLMs routinely,' and explained some specific interactions he'd had with Google's Gemini AI about writing code. These left him convinced that AIs are 'incredibly behind human intelligence,' so he wanted to make a point about it. The billions invested in the technology and the potential upending of the workforce mean it's 'impossible to have balanced conversations' on the matter, he wrote. Sanfilippo blogged that he was trying to 'fix a complicated bug' in Redis's systems. He made an attempt himself, and then asked Gemini, 'hey, what we can do here? Is there a super fast way' to implement his fix? Then, using detailed examples of the kind of software he was working with and the problem he was trying to fix, he blogged about the back-and-forth dialogue he had with Gemini as he tried to coax it toward an acceptable answer. After numerous interactions where the AI couldn't improve on his idea or really help much, he said he 'asked Gemini to do an analysis of (his last idea, and it was finally happy.' We can ignore the detailed code itself and just concentrate on Sanfilippo's final paragraph. 'All this to say: I just finished the analysis and stopped to write this blog post, I'm not sure if I'm going to use this system (but likely yes), but, the creativity of humans still have an edge, we are capable of really thinking out of the box, envisioning strange and imprecise solutions that can work better than others,' he wrote. 'This is something that is extremely hard for LLMs.' Gemini was useful, he admitted, to simply 'verify' his bug-fix ideas, but it couldn't outperform him and actually solve the problem itself. This stance from an expert coder goes up against some other pro-AI statements. Zuckerberg has said he plans to fire mid-level coders from Meta to save money, employing AI instead. In March, Amodei hit the headlines when he boldly predicted that all code would be written by AIs inside a year. Meanwhile, on the flip side, a February report from Microsoft warned that young coders coming out of college were already so reliant on AI to help them that they failed to understand the hard computer science behind the systems they were working on –something that may trip them up if they encountered a complex issue like Sanfilippo's bug. Commenters on a piece talking about Sanfilippo's blog post on coding news site Hacker News broadly agreed with his argument. One commenter likened the issue to a popular meme about social media: 'You know that saying that the best way to get an answer online is to post a wrong answer? That's what LLMs do for me.' Another writer noted that AIs were useful because even though they give pretty terrible coding advice, 'It still saves me time, because even 50 percent accuracy is still half that I don't have to write myself.' Lastly, another coder pointed out a very human benefit from using AI: 'I have ADHD and starting is the hardest part for me. With an LLM it gets me from 0 to 20% (or more) and I can nail it for the rest. It's way less stressful for me to start now.' Why should you care about this? At first glance, it looks like a very inside-baseball discussion about specific coding issues. You should care because your team members may be tempted to rely on AI to help them write code for your company, either for cost or speed rationales or because they lack particular expertise. But you should be wary. AIs are known to be unreliable, and Sanfilippo's argument, supported by other coders' comments, point out that AI really isn't capable of certain key coding tasks. For now, at least, coders' jobs may be safe… and if your team does use AI to code, they should double and triple check the AI's advice before implementing it in your IT system. – Inc./Tribune News Service

Billion-dollar battery plant pauses construction in US amid electric vehicle, tariff uncertainty
Billion-dollar battery plant pauses construction in US amid electric vehicle, tariff uncertainty

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Billion-dollar battery plant pauses construction in US amid electric vehicle, tariff uncertainty

NEW YORK: A Japanese company has halted construction on a US$1.6 billion factory in South Carolina to help make batteries for electric BMWs, citing 'policy and market uncertainty,' reported Xinhua quoting the Associated Press. 'While Automotive Energy Supply Corp. (AESC) didn't specify what those problems are, South Carolina's Republican governor said the company is dealing with the potential loss of federal tax breaks for electric vehicle buyers and incentives for EV businesses as well as tariff uncertainties from President Donald Trump's administration,' noted the report. 'What we're doing is urging caution -- let things play out because all of these changes are taking place,' Governor Henry McMaster said. AESC announced the suspension in construction of its plant in Florence on Thursday. 'Due to policy and market uncertainty, we are pausing construction at our South Carolina facility at this time,' the company's statement said. AESC promised to restart construction, although it didn't say when, and vowed to meet its commitment to hire 1,600 workers and invest US$1.6 billion. The company said it has already invested US$1 billion in the Florence plant. The battery maker based in Japan also has facilities in China, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Germany. In the United States, AESC has a plant in Tennessee and is building one in Kentucky. The statement didn't mention any changes with other plants.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store