For many jobseekers, an AI interview creates two challenges.
The first is practical: How do you prepare for an interview when there may be no person on the other side of the screen?
The second is more fundamental: Can you trust the process?
That mistrust is not unusual. A 2025 Gartner survey of nearly 3,000 candidates found that only 26% trusted AI to evaluate them fairly. Some feared that the technology could reject their applications before a person ever saw them. Others said they trusted employers less when AI was used to evaluate candidate information. Gartner candidate survey
Jobseekers may wonder what the system is measuring, whether anyone will watch the recording, how much influence AI will have and whether an accent, unusual communication style or technical problem could affect the result.
Workforce professionals should not dismiss these concerns. But we also cannot allow uncertainty about the technology to prevent people from preparing for opportunities they may need.
Our role is to help jobseekers understand the process and communicate their abilities clearly.
Begin by understanding the interview
“AI interview” can mean several different things.
Some employers use one-way video interviews in which candidates record answers to predetermined questions. A person may review those recordings later, or software may transcribe and evaluate the responses.
Other employers use conversational AI that asks questions and generates follow-ups based on what the candidate says. The interview might also include a skills assessment, game, simulation, writing exercise or automated chat.
Candidates should read the invitation and instructions carefully. If the information is unclear, it is reasonable to ask:
Will AI evaluate my responses?
Will a person review the interview?
What information will be collected?
Can I repeat an answer or ask for clarification?
Candidates may not receive complete answers, but asking can reduce uncertainty and reveal something about the employer’s commitment to transparency.
Prepare evidence rather than perfect language
The most useful preparation is not memorizing phrases that might please an algorithm. It is identifying evidence of what the person can actually do.
Before the interview, the jobseeker should study the job description and identify the five or six abilities that appear most important. These might include customer service, dependability, problem-solving, teamwork, adaptability, communication or technical knowledge.
The candidate should then prepare several examples demonstrating those abilities.
A simple structure works well:
Challenge → Action → Result → Lesson
What happened? What did the person do? What changed because of it? What did the experience teach them?
Instead of saying, “I am a good problem-solver,” a candidate might say:
“When customer wait times began exceeding 20 minutes, I reviewed when demand was highest and how employees were assigned. I proposed a new schedule and a simple triage process. Within three weeks, average wait time had fallen to eight minutes. That experience taught me to examine the workflow before assuming that more staff are needed.”
This type of answer gives both technology and human reviewers something concrete to evaluate.
Make every answer easy to follow
AI-assisted interviews may leave less room for a confused answer to be rescued by a helpful interviewer. Candidates therefore need to communicate with greater structure.
They should answer the question first and then provide the supporting example. They should explain what they did, not describe everything as “we.” When possible, they should include a measurable result or an observable change.
Most answers can be completed in approximately 60 to 90 seconds unless the employer provides different instructions. An answer does not need to sound polished enough for television. It needs to be relevant, specific and understandable.
Jobseekers can use terminology from the job description when it genuinely describes their experience. However, repeating keywords without evidence is unlikely to make an unconvincing response stronger.
Practice for an unfamiliar environment
Talking to a screen without receiving any reaction feels unnatural. There is no smile, nod or follow-up question to indicate whether the answer is working. Some candidates rush. Others become stiff or try to sound like someone they are not.
Practicing on camera can make the experience less uncomfortable.
Candidates should record answers to several likely questions and then review the video. Did they answer the question directly? Was the example understandable? Did they explain their own contribution? Were they speaking so quickly that important details were lost?
The goal is not to memorize a script. Memorization can make candidates sound unnatural and leave them unprepared when a question is worded differently. It is better to remember the structure, principal facts and outcome of each example.
Candidates should look generally toward the camera, speak clearly and behave naturally. They should not become preoccupied with maintaining perfect eye contact, smiling at precise intervals or performing gestures supposedly favored by an algorithm. Different systems operate differently, and no collection of tricks guarantees success.
Test the technology
A qualified applicant should not lose an opportunity because the microphone was not working.
Before the interview, candidates should test the camera, microphone, browser and internet connection. They should use a quiet space, position a light in front of them and remove unnecessary distractions. Phones and computer notifications should be silenced.
Most platforms provide a practice or equipment-testing option. Candidates should use it, even if they regularly participate in video meetings. An interview platform may behave differently from familiar meeting software.
A small reference sheet can be kept nearby containing the job’s principal requirements, several accomplishments and any figures the candidate wants to remember. Complete written answers should be avoided because reading from a script is usually noticeable.
Use AI as a practice partner
There is nothing inherently wrong with using AI to prepare for an AI interview.
A jobseeker can give an AI assistant the job description and ask it to generate likely questions. The person can practice answering those questions and ask for feedback on clarity, relevance and missing evidence.
For example:
“Ask me one interview question at a time for this position. After each response, tell me whether I answered the question, what evidence was missing and what follow-up question an employer might ask.”
The important boundary is honesty. AI can help organize real experience, but it should not invent accomplishments or create a personality for the applicant. A polished answer that is not true may collapse when a human interviewer asks for details.
How workforce professionals can help
Workforce professionals can do much more than provide a list of common interview questions.
First, we can reduce the mystery. We can explain that not every video interview is evaluated in the same way and that candidates should not assume every movement, expression or pause is being scored. We should be honest about what we know and equally clear about what we do not know.
Second, we can help people discover their evidence. Many jobseekers have difficulty recognizing their own accomplishments. They may describe responsibilities but overlook the problems they solved, the people they helped, the mistakes they corrected or the processes they improved.
Questions such as these can uncover stronger examples:
“What was difficult about that job?”
“What did people depend on you to handle?”
“What became better because you were there?”
“Tell me about a time something went wrong. What did you do next?”
Third, we can conduct realistic practice interviews. The candidate should answer questions while looking into a camera without receiving encouragement or feedback. Afterward, the workforce professional can review the recording with the candidate, focusing on whether the answer was clear and supported by evidence—not on appearance or minor mannerisms.
Fourth, we can provide a suitable place to complete the interview. Some jobseekers do not have reliable internet, a functioning computer or a quiet room. Others may be attempting an interview from a phone in a car or crowded home. Access to appropriate equipment and space may be as valuable as interview coaching.
Finally, workforce professionals can listen for patterns. If multiple jobseekers report confusing instructions, inaccessible systems, unexplained rejections or problems with a particular interview format, those experiences should not automatically be treated as isolated personal failures. They may represent an emerging problem worth documenting and discussing with employers.
Preparation cannot solve every concern
We should be careful not to suggest that applicants can overcome every weakness in an automated hiring system by preparing harder.
A well-prepared candidate may still encounter an unclear, poorly designed or potentially biased process. Responsibility for a trustworthy process cannot rest entirely with the jobseeker. Employers must also be transparent about how technology is being used and preserve meaningful human judgment in consequential hiring decisions.
But preparation can give candidates greater control over the part of the process they can influence.
The central question is not, “How do I impress the algorithm?”
It is:
“What evidence shows that I can do this work, and how can I communicate that evidence clearly?”
That is the preparation jobseekers need. Helping them find and communicate that evidence is one of the most useful roles workforce professionals can play as hiring continues to change.