An interview with no room to pause
The applicant had worked across several fields, from call centers and social media to bookselling, copywriting and library work. She had recently completed the first year of a master’s degree in early childhood and primary education when she applied to a nonprofit-run preschool.
She knew AI interviews could discourage applicants and risk discrimination. But knowing that did not prepare her for the experience. After learning that the next stage would be with an “AI assistant,” she dressed as she would for an ordinary interview, cleared the cats from the room and opened the link on her laptop.
A disembodied voice greeted her by name. She tried to focus on answering, despite seeing herself in a small video window with no person on the other end. Then the system asked a question that required thought. She paused—something she had been told was acceptable in an interview. The system disconnected her.
When she reopened the link, she could start again. By then, she felt close to shouting.
At the end, the assistant asked whether she had questions about the job. It responded to them by repeating the listing and directing her to a manager for clarification. The irony was hard to miss: the only route to a human answer was outside the interview.
The assistant said the organization would review the recording and be in touch. She closed the browser and stared at her reflection in the blank laptop screen. She had been alone throughout.
The job behind the process
In the days that followed, she asked early-childhood professionals on forums whether they had encountered anything similar. Colleagues, including people in leadership roles, were shocked.
The mismatch bothered her. Caring for and teaching children is deeply human work, and Australia is in the midst of a childcare crisis. In that context, using a machine to screen candidates for such a role looked, at best, lazy and, at worst, irresponsible.
She initially hoped the AI interview might be only a first step, followed by a conversation with a person. She wanted to contribute to her community. But she also felt demeaned after investing time in an application and interview without receiving comparable attention in return.
Then she noticed AI-generated images of “educators” on the organization’s website. She began to wonder whether the interview was part of a broader direction in which human workers might gradually be pushed out.
More than a month after withdrawing her application and writing to explain why, she had received no response—not even confirmation that the message had arrived. She had still not spoken to a single person.
I think the unanswered letter matters as much as the automated interview. The organization’s silence does not establish what it intends to do with AI or its workforce. But it leaves the applicant with no human explanation of a process that already made her feel replaceable. For a job centered on helping children understand the world and one another, that is a troubling way to begin.
Daily AI news
Every day we pick what actually matters in AI and explain it plainly — no hype, no filler. Subscribe if you want to follow where the industry is going.
Only what matters — every day
Follow on X