A new AI app that helps you cheat in conversations is slick, a little creepy, and not quite ready for your next meeting
A Ivy Leaguer just released an AI app to feed live answers to users. I put it to the test to see if AI could interview as well as I did.
Chungin "Roy" Lee — the Columbia student who went viral for creating an AI tool to "cheat" on job interviews — was suspended in March for posting content from a disciplinary hearing, the university said.
His new app, Cluely, helps users by analyzing what's on their screens, hearing audio, and suggesting answers to questions, all without detection from the other side. In a LinkedIn post, Lee said Cluely is a "cheating tool for literally everything."
Lee said on Monday that San Francisco-based Cluely has raised $5.3 million, backed by Abstract Ventures and Susa Ventures.
Speaking to Business Insider on Wednesday night, Lee said that Cluely has gained about 70,000 users since its launch on Sunday.
"It is pretty crazy. And this is just a lot more than we expected," he said.
Lee said the concept of "cheating" needs to be rethought in the AI era.
"Using AI is just inevitable and something that we should just all embrace," he said.
I put Cluely to the test, and I saw promise — but also huge privacy concerns.
First impressions
I tested Cluely on Tuesday morning and paid $20 for the Pro version — a monthly subscription — since the free tier doesn't offer much.
The interface is slick and minimal: a thin bar on the top of my screen. With one keyboard shortcut, Cluely scans my screen, then generates answers. I could also speak to it through my mic.
It only works with what's already on my screen — it doesn't crawl the internet like ChatGPT.
It also reads everything. I kept my Signal group chats closed.
That's what makes it powerful — and also kind of terrifying.
Lee told BI that Cluely doesn't save any data, and if it does, it's "heavily censored."
"If there's something that you don't want to be seen, then you shouldn't use the tool, and it shouldn't be up while you're on sensitive information," Lee said.
I deleted it right after writing this story.
Flopping my mock interview
Cluely's killer pitch is real-time assistance.
I let it scan my LinkedIn profile and kept it open while my editor put me through a mock interview with the same questions I answered to land this job.
First up: What is my media consumption like? Could I share what I like to read or watch? What keeps me interested and busy?
The app starts "thinking." Five seconds later, it gave me a summary of the question, not an answer.
My editor tried again, more succinctly: "What media outlets do you read?"
This time, Cluely came through:
"I enjoy staying up to date with a mix of international and local news — typically from outlets like the New York Times, BBC, and CNA. I love longform journalism from The Atlantic and Wired, especially on tech and social issues. I also listen to 'The Daily' and 'Planet Money' during my commute."
Not bad, though I don't listen to podcasts on my way to work.
My editor asked me to talk about a difficult story I've worked on. 10 seconds of awkward silence later, Cluely offered: "One difficult story I worked on was about the impact of layoffs in the tech industry."
I never wrote that story.
The second hallucination came when the app said I had a "working knowledge of Malay." My editor congratulated me on my surprising — including to me — third language skill. It completely missed the elementary Korean listed on my LinkedIn.
When my editor asked if I had questions for her, Cluely suggested a few basics: What do you enjoy most about working here? What's the team culture like? What does success look like in this role?
Not worth the $20 — yet.
Cluely's biggest flaw is speed. A five to 10-second delay feels like forever in a live interview.
The answers were also too generic, occasionally wrong, and not tailored enough to me.
It did generate decent answers to common questions. When I read them aloud, my editor said the biggest clue I had help was the delay, not the substance. She also said my real answers were better than Cluely's.
Lee told BI that Cluely is in "a really raw state."
"Our servers are super overloaded, so there's a lot of latency," he said.
But there have been "significant performance updates" since the app went out on Sunday, he added.
"We've upgraded all our servers, we've optimized the algorithms, and right now it should be about three times faster, which makes it much more usable in conversations."
Lee said hallucinations will "exist insofar as the base models that we use allow for them."
"The day that the models get better is the day that our product will get better," he added.
There's definitely potential. If Cluely got faster, smarter, and could pull info from beyond just my screen, it could become a game-changing AI assistant. If I were hiring, I might think twice about conducting remote interviews because of these sorts of apps.
But between the privacy risks, laggy performance, and random hallucinations, I'm keeping it off my computer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
40 minutes ago
- Newsweek
DoorDash Hit With Major Lawsuit Over 'Deceptive' Pricing
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. DoorDash, America's premier food delivery platform, has been sued by Canada's competition authority for "allegedly advertising misleading prices and discounts." Newsweek reached out to DoorDash via email outside of regular hours for comment. Why It Matters This marks the second major lawsuit to face DoorDash this year, following a $17-million settlement over the misuse of driver tips in February. As well as potentially forcing the delivery firm to significantly alter its pricing practices, the latest action could force the company to pay a significantly higher penalty, as well as restitution to affected customers. What To Know On Monday, the Canadian Competition Bureau announced it would be taking legal action against the San Francisco-based company, as well as its Canadian subsidiary DoorDash Technologies Canada. The antitrust watchdog said that the company had consistently promoted its services at lower prices than customers were eventually forced to pay, in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, while also misrepresenting certain fees as taxes rather than discretionary charges. The lawsuit stems from DoorDash allegedly advertising food and other items at prices far lower than those customers eventually paid, and engaging in what the bureau refers to as "drip pricing": a sales tactic in which customers are shown an initial lower price, with additional fees added later in the purchasing process. These included delivery costs, as well as obligatory "regulatory response" and "expanded range" fees. "A bureau investigation found that consumers were unable to purchase food and other items at the advertised price on DoorDash's websites and mobile applications due to the addition of mandatory fees at checkout," the announcement read, describing the practice as "deceptive," as "consumers are not presented with an attainable price up front." The Bureau alleged that DoorDash has been engaged in this alleged conduct for "close to a decade," and has acquired nearly $1 billion in customer fees from doing so. Stock image of the DoorDash logo on a smartphone screen. Stock image of the DoorDash logo on a smartphone screen. Photo illustration byIn addition, the investigation found that the company had combined service fees and taxes into a single item on a user's bill, which it said was "false or misleading as it requires an extra click for the consumer to actually see that the 'fees and estimated taxes' are two separate charges, only one of which is imposed by the government on the purchaser and not the other." In its application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal, the bureau requested that DoorDash and its subsidiary stop engaging in the practices, pay a monetary penalty "as the tribunal deems appropriate," and to pay restitution to affected customers. The latter amount, it said, could reach "the total amounts paid to DoorDash for the products in respect of which the reviewable conduct was engaged in." What People Are Saying Canada's competition commissioner Matthew Boswell said: "Parliament has made it clear that businesses must not engage in drip pricing by advertising unattainable prices and then adding mandatory fees. The Competition Bureau has been fighting against this misleading practice for years. "Our litigation against DoorDash is another example of our efforts to ensure consumers are not misled and can trust the prices they see online. We urge all businesses to review their pricing practices and make sure they comply with the law." DoorDash denied hiding fees from or misleading customers, saying it believes the lawsuit "is an overly punitive attempt to make an example of an industry leader in local commerce," in a statement quoted by Reuters. What Happens Next? According to the application, DoorDash has 45 days to issue a response to the Competition Tribunal.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
This A.I. Company Wants to Take Your Job
Years ago, when I started writing about Silicon Valley's efforts to replace workers with artificial intelligence, most tech executives at least had the decency to lie about it. 'We're not automating workers, we're augmenting them,' the executives would tell me. 'Our A.I. tools won't destroy jobs. They'll be helpful assistants that will free workers from mundane drudgery.' Of course, lines like those — which were often intended to reassure nervous workers and give cover to corporate automation plans — said more about the limitations of the technology than the motives of the executives. Back then, A.I. simply wasn't good enough to automate most jobs, and it certainly wasn't capable of replacing college-educated workers in white-collar industries like tech, consulting and finance. That is starting to change. Some of today's A.I. systems can write software, produce detailed research reports and solve complex math and science problems. Newer A.I. 'agents' are capable of carrying out long sequences of tasks and checking their own work, the way a human would. And while these systems still fall short of humans in many areas, some experts are worried that a recent uptick in unemployment for college graduates is a sign that companies are already using A.I. as a substitute for some entry-level workers. On Thursday, I got a glimpse of a post-labor future at an event held in San Francisco by Mechanize, a new A.I. start-up that has an audacious goal of automating all jobs — yours, mine, those of our doctors and lawyers, the people who write our software and design our buildings and care for our children. 'Our goal is to fully automate work,' said Tamay Besiroglu, 29, one of Mechanize's founders. 'We want to get to a fully automated economy, and make that happen as fast as possible.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Hedge fund giants are backing more external fund managers. Here's why smaller rivals are doing the opposite.
The hedge fund talent war means profit-generating portfolio managers have more options than ever. In an industry run by savvy billionaires, rank-and-file traders have had the upper hand in recent years thanks to what Millennium founder Izzy Englander deemed a " talent bubble" in 2023. Multistrategy firms, which blend a variety of investment strategies within a single fund, are catering to top PMs' whims, opening offices in places like Dubai and Puerto Rico so employees can avoid the taxman, or letting top traders run capital externally in their own funds. A report from data provider With Intelligence found that multistrategy platforms have put $55 billion to work in external managers, with firms like Millennium, Qube, and Schonfeld leading the way. But as the industry's largest players partner with new launches and external money managers, smaller platforms are drawing in portfolio managers who want a semblance of autonomy in addition to the benefits of working within a broader organization. Smaller managers can offer a more boutique feel for traders who feel constrained by the biggest multistrategy funds, which one allocator previous described as " skill factories" that don't rely on a single star. Adrian Brummer, a partner at $12 billion Brummer & Partners, a Swedish alternative investment manager, told Business Insider that the firm has four internal portfolio managers and expects that to grow to "six or more during this year." Brummer has more investment strategies run via external partnerships than internal PMs, but traders working in-house can be more efficient and easier to aboard, Brummer said. "A pod structure also allows us to access more capacity-constrained strategies," Brummer wrote in an email. A focus on talent Brummer isn't the only platform known for investing in external firms and managers that is flipping its model. A person close to the $6 billion alternative manager New Holland said the firm is in the early stages of adding internal portfolio managers to its multi-strategy offering. The firm began as an investment advisor for Dutch pension plans and has since become independent. It just hired former Brevan Howard executive Stephan Brohme as chief risk officer to boost its "operational infrastructure," a press release said. "His extensive experience and expertise working alongside investment teams to effectively mitigate and strategically manage risk will be a tremendous asset across our firm," New Holland CEO Scott Radke said in the release. London-based Bainbridge Partners, which started its multistrategy offering as a fund-of-funds in 2002, has added 10 internal investing pods over the last decade and plans to add more, according to Antoine Haddad, the founder of the $1 billion firm. "The focus is to bring in more strategies that make sense to internalize," Haddad wrote in an email, with a bias toward more niche options. At former Eisler portfolio manager Sean Gambino's new fund, Baypointe Partners, onetime Crestline executive Mark Walker is recreating an "old-school partnership," he told BI. Walker was a part of the leadership team at Crestline that turned the alternative manager's fund-of-funds business into a more modern multistrategy fund with some internal PMs. He is now the CEO of Baypointe and said he is targeting pod shop investors tired of the siloed structure found at many of the biggest platforms. He aims to build a "Seal Team 6" of senior PMs trading specific sectors, with a "completely transparent center book," which sits atop traders' portfolios and pulls its positions from them. Gambino is already trading consumer stocks, and Richard Shapiro, a former Millennium and Wexford Capital PM, will run the center book. "PMs want a level of independence but don't want to run a business," he said. While the biggest funds in the booming multistrategy space, which now manage more than $900 billion, according to research from Nasdaq's eVestment, can offer PMs more guaranteed compensation, there are levers smaller firms can pull to attract talent. A differentiator Brummer and Walker both mentioned is tailoring risk management limits to a PM's strategy and preference. It's an advantage that can only be offered by smaller firms, as the biggest funds have too many moving parts and people to make customized risk frameworks for each of their traders. "It's all about what you need to do to secure the best talent," said Matthew Glasofer, a partner at Corbin Capital Partners, a $9.6 billion alternative asset manager with a multistrategy fund that only invests in external PMs. Corbin is not yet bringing traders in-house, but Glasofer said, "We haven't shut the door on anything."
