How to beat the interview avatar

That information might include the generation of transcripts and summaries of video interviews, or the scoring of responses against predefined criteria. Crucially, those assessments focus on content, not superficial signals.

Mike Hudy, chief science officer at Hirevue, explains: ‘It’s solely based on what the person says, not background or voice inflexion.’ In practice, this means AI is often replicating structured interview techniques already used by trained human assessors, such as scoring answers against behavioural indicators.

Why AI?

The shift is driven by scale. With candidates now able to use generative AI to produce and submit applications at volume, employers are facing what one recruiter describes as a ‘blizzard of applications’.

In response, organisations are deploying AI to manage that volume more efficiently. Large employers in particular are increasingly using AI-led screening tools, including chatbots and video interviews, to filter candidates earlier in the process.

‘The big companies are increasingly using such tools,’ says Matt Salmon, operations director at recruitment group Gattaca. This is especially true for high-volume, early-career roles, where hundreds – or even thousands – of candidates may apply.

What to expect

AI-enabled interviews typically fall into three broad categories:

• asynchronous video interviews, where candidates record responses to preset questions that are later reviewed (and sometimes scored) by AI and/or humans
• AI-assisted screening, where chatbots or automated systems ask questions – often via text – to gather initial information and shortlist candidates
• interactive AI interviews, where candidates engage with an AI ‘interviewer’, which may be voice-based or represented by a digital avatar.

While the formats may differ, the underlying goal is consistent: to assess skills, judgment and experience.

In many cases, AI does not eliminate human involvement but simply changes the order of interaction. Hudy points out that AI often ‘prioritises’ candidates rather than making decisions, and humans still determine who progresses.

Fairness concerns

For candidates, the most common concern is whether AI introduces bias into hiring decisions. However, AI’s proponents argue that it is human interviews where bias is to be found. Human interviewers, Hudy points out, are inherently inconsistent and subject to unconscious bias, particularly when reviewing large volumes of candidates. AI, by contrast, applies the same criteria consistently.

‘AI never gets tired; you’re getting a consistent apples-to-apples comparison across all candidates,’ he says.

However, how systems are designed and monitored makes a big difference. Poorly trained AI models can replicate existing biases, and regulatory scrutiny is increasing, particularly in Europe.

Candidates should also expect transparency in the use of AI by employers. Many platforms now require explicit consent where AI is used, and offer human alternatives where candidates are uncomfortable.

Same prep

If the technology feels new, the preparation should not. The most effective approach remains grounded in classic interview technique: understanding the role, identifying relevant skills and preparing clear, structured examples.

Hudy advises candidates to focus on transferable skills and real experiences. ‘Think about your experiences and be able to describe them in detail to tell stories around how you’ve demonstrated those skills – by using the STAR method [situation, task, action, result], for instance.’

At the same time, candidates should be mindful of how AI is used when preparing for interviews. Phil Boden, market director at recruitment agency Robert Half, says: ‘AI tools often look for role-specific cues and terms, so it’s useful to mirror the language of the job description in a natural way. Candidates must also avoid overreliance on AI-generated phrasing – what ultimately matters is the human element.’

Mixed reactions

While adoption is rising, candidate sentiment remains uneven. Some find the AI-enabled interview more convenient, particularly when they can complete it at a time of their own choosing. Others see AI-enabled interviews as impersonal or overly transactional.

There is also a practical reality: candidates tend to favour processes that lead to success. As Salmon puts it, if a candidate progresses ‘it’s the best thing ever’, but if not, an AI interview can feel like an unfair way to be filtered out.

What next?

Perhaps the most striking development is the emergence of AI ‘interviewers’ – digital avatars capable of asking questions and responding in real time. According to a recent BBC article, companies are experimenting with AI-driven interviewers that can conduct conversations, analyse responses and generate assessments.

For now, these tools are still evolving and not universally adopted. But the direction of travel is clear. Over the next few years, AI is expected to move beyond automating tasks towards improving the quality of hiring decisions and matching candidates to roles more effectively, not just faster.

Even so, full automation remains unlikely. ‘Recruitment remains a fundamentally human process,’ Boden says. ‘AI reflects a broader trend of augmentation rather than automation.’

But for all the technological change, the core of the interview process remains the same. Employers are still looking for candidates who can communicate clearly, demonstrate relevant skills and show sound judgment. AI may change how those qualities are assessed, but not the fact that they matter.

For candidates, the message is simple: don’t try to outsmart the system. Focus instead on what you bring to the role. Because whether it’s a human or an algorithm on the other side of the screen, authenticity still cuts through.