Why Hundreds of UK Jobseekers Feel Humiliated by AI Job Interviews — And 30% Would Rather Walk Away

Almost half of UK jobseekers say AI-led interviews leave them feeling humiliated. A recent Guardian report found that 47% of candidates described the experience as 'robotic', unrealistic and lacking meaningful feedback. Meanwhile, 30% said they would abandon a recruitment process altogether if it involved an AI interview.

As businesses increasingly adopt artificial intelligence to streamline hiring, concerns are growing over whether speed and efficiency are coming at the expense of fairness and the candidate experience.

One of the biggest criticisms is the potential for discrimination. A 2025 study by the University of Melbourne found that AI hiring systems performed less accurately when assessing candidates with non-US accents or different language abilities because many models had been trained primarily on US-based data. This increased the likelihood of candidates being misunderstood or unfairly assessed during the screening process.

When Algorithms Reject Experience

AI has also come under scrutiny for filtering candidates out before a human ever reviews their application.

According to the BBC, automated CV screening can lead to instant rejections when applicants fail to match predetermined criteria. While employers argue that AI enables them to process large numbers of applications more efficiently, critics say it risks overlooking strong candidates with unconventional career paths.

Career progression is rarely linear, yet rigid algorithms may struggle to recognise transferable skills or non-traditional experience. The BBC highlighted the case of former Welsh Secretary David TC Davies, who was reportedly rejected for several roles because he lacked a university degree despite serving in senior government positions. Automated screening systems filtered him out before his experience could be considered.

For many jobseekers, that raises a broader question: can software accurately assess potential, or does it simply reward candidates who fit a predefined template?

Is AI the Problem, or How It's Used?

The issue may not lie solely with AI itself but with how organisations implement it.

An IBM study found that one in five organisations lacks enough employees with the skills needed to use new AI tools effectively, while only 34% are actively retraining staff to work with the technology. If employers are still developing their own AI expertise, questions remain over whether these systems are being used responsibly in recruitment.

AI hiring platform Greenhouse argues that AI should support, rather than replace, human decision-making. In guidance on creating 'defensible' AI hiring processes, the company recommends documenting where AI is used, clearly defining what decisions it should not make, and ensuring humans remain responsible for consequential hiring decisions. It also recommends being transparent with candidates about AI's role and allowing them to opt out where possible.

The guidance also stresses that AI should be governed before it is rolled out at scale, with legal and security teams involved from the outset, rather than after concerns arise.

Trust Remains the Biggest Challenge

Supporters argue that AI can still improve recruitment by handling repetitive administrative tasks, answering basic candidate questions and speeding up the early stages of hiring. Used responsibly, it could help recruiters focus more time on interviewing shortlisted candidates.

However, the technology appears to face a growing trust problem.

If nearly one-third of candidates are willing to walk away from an AI-led recruitment process altogether, employers may need to reconsider how much automation applicants are willing to accept. For many jobseekers, the concern is no longer whether AI belongs in recruitment, but whether there is still a human on the other side making the final decision.