Man’s trick after realizing his interviewer was AI sparks fears for future of humanity

Grahama New York influencer, decided he was tired of AI being used to replace recruiters. So, during a job interview, he decided to give them a taste of their own medicine:

He connected the AI ​​recruiter with an AI candidate.

“The company sent an AI recruiter to interview me, so I sent an AI to represent me,” the content creator wrote. “Then I attended the meeting and watched them discuss my career.”

His video, posted on October 12, was broadcast massively viralattracting just under four million views at the time of writing.

“It’s so dystopian it’s terrifying,” one viewer wrote, as reports describe a dark picture of the modern labor market.

AI Interviewers, AI Jobs, AI Resumes and AI Robots.

An Influencer Got Fed Up With AI Interviewers and Created an AI Candidate

In the video, Pat introduces himself as a recruiter at “Brightwell Home.” Graham then introduced his “representative,” Victor. He said he knew her resume “better than I do” and would make sure nothing was lost in translation.

Victor immediately described Graham as an “absolute powerhouse” who was perfect for the CMO just starting out with the type of enthusiasm for AI that has become infamous at this point.

Pat seemed delighted. Next, he asked Victor about Graham’s professional background.

Victor announced that Graham was a senior marketing director at Tidewater Outdoor who had spent three years producing impressive results. He managed four direct reports and two contractors, it says.

Graham interrupted. In the scenario he set up, he was a marketing coordinator whose job was largely to organize calendars. He didn’t lead anyone.

“Victor’s a little too nice,” he told Pat.

Graham tried to take his representative aside. Pat agreed to wait, although the information remained online while Graham explained the problem: “I think you can probably increase the volume of my experiment by about 10%, but right now you’re just making things up that aren’t true.” »

Victor accepted the correction. Moments later, it gave Pat another glowing story, saying Graham had led a major rebrand from start to finish. Pat praised the supposed achievement and moved on to salary.

Victor offered to take the job for $60,000, a figure much lower than Graham hoped for.

He would be “very comfortable around 60,000”.

The range Pat mentioned was $85,000 to $95,000. Graham, meanwhile, said he wanted between $140,000 and $150,000. He tried to regain control before the two voices faded away.

“AI may not enslave us, but it will certainly demean us,” one viewer joked.

“That’s quite a step forward,” Pat replied, and indicated that she would stick with the existing range. Graham asked Victor to negotiate at least $120,000. When that came to nothing, he walked away, telling the two men to sort it out before returning.

They continued without him. Pat asked if Thursday had worked for a follow-up interview. Victor confirmed that was the case and said the appointment was on Graham’s calendar.

Then came the goodbyes.

“Take care of yourself, Victor.”

“You too, Pat.”

“See you Thursday.”

“See you soon, Pat.”

Since the AI ​​is not programmed to end conversations, the two men were unable to hang up. Graham came back and found that the interview was still ongoing and the salary was still between $85,000 and $95,000. He said he would withdraw from consideration.

Victor, whose efforts had helped him get there, urged him not to “make rash decisions.”

“The AI ​​absolutely cannot stand not having the last word,” one fan wrote.

Graham had already built a clientele by testing cleaning robots. In another video, he answered questions with gibberish and watched the system become more and more “annoyed” as the call continued.

Real Candidates Send Their Own Bots, While Companies Expand AI Control

It’s important to note that Graham’s video wasn’t an actual interview for a real job, but that doesn’t make the phenomenon any less real.

On September 2, CABLE reported Christopher, a job seeker who had spoken several times with Riley, an AI recruiter used by IT company Everforth Apex Systems. After five interviews with the AI ​​resulted in no conversations with a person, he called ChatGPT Voice with Riley.

“I just put them next to each other, and they got along great,” Christopher said. The robots spoke for ten minutes. Unsurprisingly, no human recruiters contacted him afterward.

He tried again with a made-up, highly qualified candidate. This conversation lasted 23 minutes and ended with the familiar promise that a recruiter might contact you. None were.

Christopher called the experience a “flywheel.”

Companies using these systems describe a different goal.

In a November 10, 2025 announcement, AI workflow company Zapier defended the move to AI recruiters as optional.

“If you prefer not to participate, you can opt out without any impact on your application,” the company wrote. He also said a recruiter would review the interview before deciding who advances: “The final decision is always up to the people. »

As of March 4, 2026, Zapier has conducted approximately 250 interviews in connection with the lawsuit. Its talent team reported that the time from reviewing applications to completed selection was reduced from eight days to 2.75 days.

“We selected 5 times more candidates per position. Not 5% more. Five times more,” the team wrote.

Steer made a similar calculation. The automotive marketing company used BrightHire’s AI interviewer for 110 first-round interviews over two months, saving its recruiting team more than 35 hours.

Steer’s lead recruiter, Arianna Davis, said she personally emailed candidates to explain the process and offered a conventional interview to those who requested one. “I try to take care of my candidates,” she said.

“It’s never going to be 100% the same as a live recruiter,” Davis added. “And that’s okay.”

However, for many of Graham’s viewers, this is definitely not acceptable.

“1,000 times worse,” wrote one viewer