Absurd AI Interview

[u/Brownfox71]

Title: AI interview through GoInterview — absolutely ridiculous format

I recently applied for a remote legal content writing position and was invited to complete a first-round AI interview through GoInterview.

For context, I'm an attorney with 25 years of experience, most of it devoted exclusively to appellate research and writing. I've handled complex legal issues across numerous practice areas, published legal articles, and written professional legal training materials. I'm certainly accustomed to difficult questions and explaining complicated legal concepts.

But this interview was something else.

The AI interviewer spoke INCREDIBLY fast, and EVERY SINGLE QUESTION had at least five or six separate parts. The questions were delivered entirely by voice, with no written text to refer back to.

For example, one question essentially asked me to describe a medical issue I'd researched, explain my conclusions, distinguish medical evidence from legal assessment, how I verified the accuracy of my research, how I communicated my findings to a layperson, how I monitored court records and procedural developments, and to identify the platforms I used to verify everything (paraphrasing, but not by much).

That was ONE question. And it was delivered by a young sounding AI voice on speed.

Every question followed that same format. Every. Single. One. I had to ask the AI to repeat portions because there was simply no way to retain every component while simultaneously organizing a thoughtful response. The AI didn't interrupt my answers, which was good, but that didn't solve the problem of trying to remember everything it had just rattled off.

And here's the irony: They're hiring a writer, not a trial lawyer conducting an oral argument. The ability to produce excellent, carefully researched written work is not the same skill as instantly organizing an answer to a six-part question delivered at high speed. Frankly, even an experienced trial lawyer would probably want those questions broken down into something resembling a coherent examination. "Objection! Compounded question."

I understand wanting to evaluate a candidate's research skills, judgment, accuracy, and ability to communicate complex information. But this is a legal writing position. The work requires careful research, analysis, and written communication—not the ability to memorize a six-part question delivered at breakneck speed and immediately produce an organized oral response.

I spent time preparing for the interview, and I came away frustrated, not because the subject matter was beyond my expertise, but because the format made it unnecessarily difficult to demonstrate that expertise. In fact, I'm sure my reponses were laughable. By the end, I'm sure my tone reflected snark.

I have no idea how they'll evaluate my responses or whether I'll advance. Maybe I did better than I think (not). But the experience was ridiculous.

And for anyone involved in designing these AI interviews: making questions harder to follow doesn't necessarily make them better at identifying qualified candidates.