In a world where artificial intelligence is becoming deeply embedded in hiring processes, one founder's stance on AI usage has ignited a digital firestorm. Mason Swofford, founder of Tenzo.ai, a company that builds AI-powered recruiting agents, recently took to LinkedIn to denounce what he called "interview cheating" after a candidate allegedly used ChatGPT to respond during an AI-conducted interview.
Swofford shared a screenshot highlighting timestamps where the candidate switched tabs and copy-pasted responses during the first six minutes of the interview with Morgan, Tenzo’s AI recruiter. What made the scenario more surprising was that the questions weren’t even technical. They revolved around the candidate’s professional background and job preferences.
“Please don’t disqualify yourself,” Swofford wrote in the post. “It is quite literally our job to prevent this kind of dishonesty.” He went on to assert that the candidate was visibly reading from another tab and insisted, “Yes, we can tell when you aren’t being your true self.”
The Comment Section Goes Nuclear
While Swofford’s intent was to uphold integrity in hiring, his post was quickly swept into a storm of criticism. Netizens were quick to point out the irony of an AI company using a bot for initial interviews and then chastising a candidate for relying on another AI tool to assist with responses.
One viral comment on LinkedIn read, “Did you seriously just complain about candidates using AI, calling it cheating, just to say right after that… that you're using an AI interviewer?” Another user chimed in, “If your interview can be passed by an LLM with the computing power of a fly, you're clearly doing something wrong and lack forward thinking.”
The debate pivoted to deeper questions about what interviews are meant to evaluate. Is using AI assistance any different than preparing for interviews with traditional resources? Or is it about who controls the AI tools?
Clarification or Contradiction?
In response to growing backlash, Swofford offered more context in a follow-up comment. He clarified that the interview wasn’t text-based but conducted via a Google Meet-style video call. According to him, the candidate was visibly copy-pasting questions and reading off responses while interacting with the AI interviewer. “It also was after every answer, not just the first few,” he noted.
However, this clarification only fueled more questions. If a job requires navigating AI efficiently, shouldn’t using tools like ChatGPT in real-time be viewed as resourcefulness rather than dishonesty?
Efficiency vs. Authenticity: The Dilemma of AI-First Hiring
Supporters of the candidate’s actions argue that AI interviews should naturally account for the reality of AI-assisted communication. One comment suggested, “AI interviewers offer scalability and consistency. So what’s wrong if a candidate uses AI to level the playing field—especially if they struggle with anxiety or communication barriers?”
Critics of Tenzo’s approach pointed out that when both sides in the interview process use AI, the conversation becomes a battle of optimisations. Rehearsed questions versus polished answers rather than a genuine assessment of fit or skill.
Recruitment experts weighed in online, urging companies to evolve their interview formats. Instead of banning AI use, they suggest adapting to it. Test depth of understanding through follow-up questions, include live problem-solving, and ask candidates directly how they prepared to acknowledge AI as part of the modern job-seeker’s toolkit.
Redditors Rip into the Discourse
As screenshots of the post made their way to Reddit’s r/LinkedInLunatics, users found even more to criticize. One top comment sarcastically read, “It’s cool when we do it but not when you do it.” Others questioned the logic behind conducting over 300 interviews via AI for one role and called into doubt whether real attention was being paid to CVs at all.
The sentiment was clear. Authenticity matters, but so does fairness. And if AI is the new gatekeeper, then using AI to get through that gate may not be cheating. It might just be the new normal.
A Mirror to the Future of Work
This incident is more than just a spat over one interview. It is a signpost for the future of hiring. As companies embrace AI to scale their processes, they may also have to accept that candidates will do the same. The line between cheating and strategizing is growing thinner and perhaps, it is time to redraw that line.
For now, though, it seems that AI has not only entered the boardroom but also sparked a new debate at the intersection of ethics, technology, and employment. And this time, it is not going to be settled by a chatbot.
Swofford shared a screenshot highlighting timestamps where the candidate switched tabs and copy-pasted responses during the first six minutes of the interview with Morgan, Tenzo’s AI recruiter. What made the scenario more surprising was that the questions weren’t even technical. They revolved around the candidate’s professional background and job preferences.
“Please don’t disqualify yourself,” Swofford wrote in the post. “It is quite literally our job to prevent this kind of dishonesty.” He went on to assert that the candidate was visibly reading from another tab and insisted, “Yes, we can tell when you aren’t being your true self.”
The Comment Section Goes Nuclear
While Swofford’s intent was to uphold integrity in hiring, his post was quickly swept into a storm of criticism. Netizens were quick to point out the irony of an AI company using a bot for initial interviews and then chastising a candidate for relying on another AI tool to assist with responses.
One viral comment on LinkedIn read, “Did you seriously just complain about candidates using AI, calling it cheating, just to say right after that… that you're using an AI interviewer?” Another user chimed in, “If your interview can be passed by an LLM with the computing power of a fly, you're clearly doing something wrong and lack forward thinking.”
The debate pivoted to deeper questions about what interviews are meant to evaluate. Is using AI assistance any different than preparing for interviews with traditional resources? Or is it about who controls the AI tools?
Clarification or Contradiction?
In response to growing backlash, Swofford offered more context in a follow-up comment. He clarified that the interview wasn’t text-based but conducted via a Google Meet-style video call. According to him, the candidate was visibly copy-pasting questions and reading off responses while interacting with the AI interviewer. “It also was after every answer, not just the first few,” he noted.
However, this clarification only fueled more questions. If a job requires navigating AI efficiently, shouldn’t using tools like ChatGPT in real-time be viewed as resourcefulness rather than dishonesty?
Efficiency vs. Authenticity: The Dilemma of AI-First Hiring
Supporters of the candidate’s actions argue that AI interviews should naturally account for the reality of AI-assisted communication. One comment suggested, “AI interviewers offer scalability and consistency. So what’s wrong if a candidate uses AI to level the playing field—especially if they struggle with anxiety or communication barriers?”
Critics of Tenzo’s approach pointed out that when both sides in the interview process use AI, the conversation becomes a battle of optimisations. Rehearsed questions versus polished answers rather than a genuine assessment of fit or skill.
Recruitment experts weighed in online, urging companies to evolve their interview formats. Instead of banning AI use, they suggest adapting to it. Test depth of understanding through follow-up questions, include live problem-solving, and ask candidates directly how they prepared to acknowledge AI as part of the modern job-seeker’s toolkit.
Redditors Rip into the Discourse
As screenshots of the post made their way to Reddit’s r/LinkedInLunatics, users found even more to criticize. One top comment sarcastically read, “It’s cool when we do it but not when you do it.” Others questioned the logic behind conducting over 300 interviews via AI for one role and called into doubt whether real attention was being paid to CVs at all.
The sentiment was clear. Authenticity matters, but so does fairness. And if AI is the new gatekeeper, then using AI to get through that gate may not be cheating. It might just be the new normal.
A Mirror to the Future of Work
This incident is more than just a spat over one interview. It is a signpost for the future of hiring. As companies embrace AI to scale their processes, they may also have to accept that candidates will do the same. The line between cheating and strategizing is growing thinner and perhaps, it is time to redraw that line.
For now, though, it seems that AI has not only entered the boardroom but also sparked a new debate at the intersection of ethics, technology, and employment. And this time, it is not going to be settled by a chatbot.
You may also like
Exclude agriculture from India-US trade deal: Farm bodies
Congress plans offensive in Parliament on Pahalgam attack, Trump mediation claims, and Bihar voter roll row
Prince William's 'strict' stance on Prince Harry even if he reconciles with King
ITV SHARK! Celebrity Infested Waters viewers left tearful over mention of late celeb
Chhattisgarh Assembly session: Opposition walks out over Jal Jeevan Mission, demands CSR fund probe
