Candidates prefer to be interviewed by an AI

What if I told you we're so bad at interviewing candidates that 78% of job seekers prefer being interviewed by AI over humans?

The research is brutal: 70,000 job seekers in the Philippines confirmed it. We absolutely suck at interviewing people.

The AI voice interviewer ("Anna") didn't just beat human recruiters—it crushed them:

🔹 12% more job offers
🔹 18% more candidates actually started the job
🔹 17% better retention after 30 days
Zero difference in candidate satisfaction

The gut punch? Human recruiters consistently rated AI-interviewed candidates HIGHER when making final decisions. Anna was better at getting humans the intel they needed to make smart choices.

Why? Because we're biased, inconsistent, and frankly, we hire on vibes way too much.

Traditional interviews predict only 8% of job performance.
Your horoscope is more accurate.

We ask different questions to different people.
We ask Sarah about her greatest weaknesses.
We grill Marcus about his five-year plan.
One charming answer creates a halo so bright we miss red flags the size of billboards.

The math is brutal:
Women and minorities with 4.0 GPAs get the same treatment as white guys with 3.75s in STEM.

That's not a hiring process.
It’s hiring theater.

The hybrid future isn't about replacing human recruiters—it's about freeing them from what they’re no good at. Let AI handle the systematic information gathering. Let humans focus on evaluation, culture add, and strategic decisions.

We say we want diverse, qualified teams.
The data suggests AI might actually deliver them.

What's your take?
Are you ready to let a robot ask the questions if it means better hires?