Let me address the elephant in the room: Is this cheating? Initially, I had the same concerns. But after analyzing hundreds of cases, I've come to a provocative conclusion:
True "cheating" - getting jobs you're completely unqualified for - rarely happens. Our AI can suggest approaches or help structure thoughts, but it can't fabricate expertise that doesn't exist.
What we're really doing is "leveling the playing field" - helping qualified but anxious candidates overcome the artificial barriers of interview performance. We're exposing the fundamental flaw in traditional interviews: they often measure presentation skills rather than actual job capability.
For candidates genuinely lacking skills, our tool doesn't save them - they still fail technical assessments and follow-ups. The system eventually catches those who don't belong.
Our most telling feedback? "The tool helped me stay calm knowing I had backup, which ironically meant I relied on it less than expected."
So I challenge the tech community: Is using AI assistance during interviews any different from extensive coaching or rehearsed answers? Are we undermining the interview process - or simply revealing how broken it already is? Should interviews be tests of performance under pressure, or accurate assessments of capability?
Our tool remains undetectable to interviewers, giving candidates an invisible advantage. We make no apologies for helping qualified people showcase their true abilities rather than rewarding those who simply interview well.
Where do you stand on this? Is this the future of hiring, or a step too far?
> We're exposing the fundamental flaw in traditional interviews: they often measure presentation skills rather than actual job capability.
I understand that helping candidates overcome anxiety can have some benefit. But I would not call personal presentation skills and the broader aspects of personality and communication irrelevant, in the sense that gauging those skills in an interview represents a fundamental flaw. Software projects fail far more often due to personality issues and interpersonal conflict compared to purely technical skill issues.
I suppose a company that has implemented a rote and impersonal interview process deserves to have that process gamed. I would call it cheating and disqualify a candidate who used AI or any undisclosed assistance in an interview.
>"...we provide real-time, undetectable assistance during job interviews. Hundreds of our users have landed positions they might otherwise have missed out on."
This is so evidently astroturfed advertising masquerading as an earnest request for ethical guidance. I hope Justice finds you someday, with her sword in her hand.
If a candidate gets the position because they used your tool to fool the interviewers, and they later get fired, then you’ve wasted a huge amount of the hiring company’s time and money as well as the time of the team who has to cope with the situation. I know this doesn’t affect your business model because they got through the interview and that’s all that has to matter to you, but anyone who has had to deal with a bad hire is going to despise tools like this.