Interview Catfishes: Reflections on AI from a Data Hiring ManagerPublished inInside League·6 min read·Just now--We’re living in exciting times with AI tools at our fingertips. Whether I’m meal planning, searching for an error in my code, organizing a vacation, summarizing meetings and threads, or trying to remember that catchy song, AI has disrupted the way I operate in all parts of my life. At League, it’s so exciting to be building AI-driven features, and I believe that AI is crucial to how we advance technology. As a data leader, I truly agree with the saying that if we aren’t using AI, we are falling behind.There’s always a but…Now comes the dreaded “but”: while the benefits of AI are fantastic from a productivity and innovation perspective, this post is about the downsides of over-reliance on AI, specifically in the context of job interviews if a candidate uses it dishonestly.My new major ick is dishonest use of AI interview assistance, where candidates read their answers off a screen teleprompter style, generated by an AI service that listens for your questions in real-time. In the past three months with over 50 interviews, about 20% of our candidates were immediately disqualified due to obvious AI assistant usage. While I encourage using AI in your job search, my goal is to find balance between “a helpful tool” versus something that misrepresents your skillset and doesn’t leave room for an authentic conversation.It’s the modern day catfish and it sets everyone involved up for failure. For candidates, it’s hurting their chances, and for hiring managers, it’s a headache to navigate and avoid. Of course this excludes aids necessary for accessibility purposes, such as speech-to-text or closed captioning.Picture this: I’ve got a great candidate on paper, exactly what we asked for in the posting and more. Excellent.They join the interview and start off by reading a scripted introduction of themselves.I politely explain that this is an informal interview and that while I appreciate their prep ahead of time, ask that they please try not read directly from a script.They shrug and continue reading. Cue vague answers to direct questions, with inconsistent, contradicting statements that they can’t elaborate on.Cue glazed over eyes, emotionless reading (it’s obvious even if you think it’s not), and in worse cases sometimes tripping up while reading their sentence.They stall while their prompter is catching up.I’ll remind them again to please keep it informal and not read their answers word for word, only for them to deny, in a completely different tone than their previous robotic reading.The interview is cold, impersonal, and I leave the interview disappointed not to have gotten to know the candidate. Next!Why Everyone LosesRecognizing that there is a power dynamic here and that the job market is especially tough these days, I needed to dig deeper into why this type of catfishing irked me so much (I’m a Data Engineer — I need more information!) and I started to think back to the hierarchy of skillsets for any role I’d hire. In order of importance, they are:Trust: Honesty and trustworthiness are essential for remote work and a positive team dynamic, regardless if the role is technical or not.Communication Skills: Effective oral and written communication is crucial for understanding instructions, articulating thoughts, and collaborating within a team.Technical Savviness & Willingness to Learn: Adaptability and the ability to learn new skills are valued over expertise in specific technologies. Ironically, the ability to make good use of AI tooling falls into this category, and I love to hear about how candidates leverage it!Specific Skillset: While relevant specific skills and experience are beneficial, they are not always the most critical factor for success, given how rapidly technology changes anyways.So, what happens when someone’s over-relying on an AI assistant after being asked not to in an interview? Right off the bat, there goes honesty/trust (1). If a candidate needs to rely on reading their answers without any room for real discussion, it would indicate subpar communication skills (2). Since I can’t trust their answers, their technical savviness (3) and skillset (4) are out the window as well. The candidate will not pass the interview, and everyone leaves disappointed.Let’s think about this from an odds perspective. Say Sue knows SQL really well but uses another type of batch data processing software than we do (Airflow). And she’s heard of infrastructure as code software (Terraform), but she’s not that familiar with it beyond high-level theoretical knowledge. We’d have a couple possible scenarios:If she’s honest about her skillset, maybe she’d get an intermediate role with mentorship and space to grow in the gaps we’ve identified (Airflow, Terraform).If Sue uses an AI assistant to read off of, she would most likely be disqualified. But in the rare possibility that she did so without any detection, her skillset would be misrepresented. She’d get the role but be given responsibilities based on skills that she doesn’t have (Airflow, Terraform), and she would likely not pass her first 3 month probationary period.In all of the above, the only positive outcome is a result of both parties showing up as their authentic selves, even if that risks for the candidate missing out on the job. They’d be better off with a “soft no” due to missing skills than a “hard no” due to cheating, or a dismissal a few weeks into the job. With a soft no due to missing skills, a candidate can leave the interview knowing what areas they need to grow, but with the AI assistant muddling the reality, candidates aren’t learning anything.Ways to Fix ThisSo, what do we do about this problem? We need to remind ourselves that we are human above all else. In a sea of prompt-reading candidates, talking to an authentic person feels like a breath of fresh air, and I find myself valuing the imperfections of general back and forth conversations. In those cases, I leave an interview with a good idea of what a real technical discussion would be like between peers and as a result I have much more confidence in my perception of the candidate. Due to the high use of dishonest AI assistance I’ve experienced, I have actually adjusted my own expectations for candidates by focusing on behavioral priorities such as communication, trust, willingness to learn, and transferable skills. Here’s what I recommend:What interviewers should do:Ask the candidate if there are any accessibility needs at the start of the interview, and accommodate them as needed.Let your candidates know that you value authenticity and transferable skills over scripted perfection. Ask them not to rely on AI assistants directly!Focus on communication skills — can a candidate clearly and directly answer a question you’ve asked?Learn to detect AI assistants (ask direct questions, ask for examples).Stop the emphasis on a perfect resume / conversation and focus on transferable and soft skills instead.What what job seekers should do:Continue to use tools to cater your resume, cover letter, etc. as long as it remains truthful.Practice for interviews! Whether with a friend, or with an AI tool, mock interviews are a great idea.It’s ok to have notes in your interview, and kudos for being prepared! Just be ready for an unscripted conversation.If you are comfortable, disclose with your interviewer if you are using accessibility tools.Be your authentic self in your interview! Someone who uses AI to read a scripted answer will be disqualified immediately and barred from other roles. Not to be confused with the use of AI in general, which we completely encourage.In conclusion, AI is awesome for productivity and innovation. I’ve used it to edit this very post, including shortening some wordy sentences and spellchecking along the way. However, the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to tooling during job interviews when used dishonestly, especially if it results in a candidate reading their full answers off a screen. I’d much prefer to have an authentic conversation with a candidate, and I welcome sharing tips on productive ways to use AI.A genuine, imperfect candidate will leave a much stronger impression and will result in a greater rate of success down the road, fostering an honest, vulnerable, and mutually beneficial relationship. Companies are hiring a person, not perfection, and the sooner both sides of an interview value that, the better.