Screenshot of a web-based AI job interview interface.
A pop-up titled “Quick note about AI usage” appears over the interview. It states that every response is checked for AI-generated content, that answers should be written from the applicant’s own experience and in the applicant’s own words, and that reviewers look at what a candidate did and how they did it rather than how polished the writing is. It adds that candidates who move to the next stage may be asked more about the examples given, so examples worth discussing should be chosen. A checkbox labeled “I’ll answer in my own words.” sits next to an OK button before the interview can continue.
Behind the dialog, the interview prompt asks for a specific example of working with others on a goal or project: what the person did to help and how everything was kept on plan, with the note that the example could come from home, work, school, a sporting team, or a community group. A tip at the bottom mentions that speech-to-text can be used to respond.
The juxtaposition of an AI-conducted interview warning against AI-generated answers is what the post highlights.
The goal of the interaction is to land the job, not to yell into the void.
If you’re interviewed by an LLM, you need strategies that give you the best odds at escalating your resume up the chain. Idk if that means using an LLM to write for you. But I might consider looking up injection attacks and exploits to trigger an escalation of your resume. Possible that an LLM can help you formulate the strategy, but I suspect the actual work product will need to be customized by a human to have the best chance of success.
Probably the best way to draw attention to you if applying for a tech job
And for the other things, it’s probably a matter of scale - if i can use LLMs to apply for 3 times the jobs than i could without, i’d say that my chances became better, not worse. But yeah, for the jobs you would really like to land a human touch is for sure the better strategy.