I just read an article about a man who shows up for what he believes is his dream job interview, only to discover that a robot is conducting the interview.

It’s a short piece, but it raises big questions.

AI in recruitment is no longer theoretical – it’s here. Companies are using it for first-stage interviews, screening, even decision-making. On paper, it’s efficient: scale, speed, and a promise of objectivity. I get it. I’ve built systems where automation saved thousands of hours.

But the scenario described here? A candidate walks into his dream job interview and is greeted by a glitching robot. The “interviewer” stutters, repeats itself, then promptly rejects him – with a generic message that does not even use his real name.  Shocking.

This is the cost of dehumanizing recruitment.

Let’s be real – hiring is not just about checking skills against a job description. It’s about understanding fit, gauging intent, reading nuance. AI does not (yet) read body language, understand emotional intelligence, or recognize that a candidate is nervous because they really care about the role.

There is a place for automation in hiring – resume screening, scheduling, filtering clear mismatches. But we are crossing a line when we outsource human judgment entirely. We risk creating a system that is impersonal, opaque, and often inaccurate.

What worries me most: we are teaching candidates that they are data points. That they should accept zero feedback. That misfiring tech is “just how it works.”

The irony? Most companies say they hire for “culture” and “passion.” Good luck gauging either through a broken chatbot.

The original article is here: He shows up for an interview for his dream job, only to find out he’s being interviewed by a robot