A job applicant for a sessional kindergarten teaching position has shared her experience of being interviewed by an artificial intelligence (AI) system, describing the process as dehumanising and unsettling. The incident highlights growing concerns over the use of AI in recruitment, particularly in sectors that rely heavily on personal interaction and care, such as early childhood education.

The applicant, who recently completed her first year of a master’s degree in early childhood and primary teaching, initially approached the role with enthusiasm. However, her optimism waned upon learning that the interview would be conducted solely by an AI assistant rather than a human interviewer. She described the experience as "dystopian," noting the absence of direct human engagement and the awkwardness of interacting with a disembodied voice on her laptop screen.

During the AI interview, the applicant faced unexpected challenges. When she paused to thoughtfully consider a question—a practice typically acceptable in traditional interviews—she was abruptly disconnected from the session and forced to restart. Despite having genuine queries about the role, she found the AI’s responses limited to reiterating information already provided in the job advertisement. Any further clarification was deferred to conversations with human managers, which were not part of this initial stage.

Following the interview, she received no immediate contact from the organisation, only a notification that her video would be reviewed. She described the entire process as isolating, noting that she was alone at her computer throughout. After sharing her experience with peers in early childhood education forums, she encountered widespread disbelief and concern about the appropriateness of employing AI in the recruitment process for such a fundamentally human-centered profession.

The applicant expressed particular unease regarding the broader implications for the childcare sector, which is currently facing a significant workforce shortage in Australia. She questioned the decision to delegate the recruitment of educators, whose work centers on personal connection and empathy, to an automated system. This approach, she argued, risks undermining the integrity of the profession and could signal a broader trend of labour depersonalisation.

Ultimately, the candidate chose to withdraw her application and communicated her reasons in writing to the organisation, which has yet to respond. She reflected on the contrast between the nurturing environment that early childhood educators cultivate and what she experienced as a cold, impersonal initial hiring process.

Her account raises important questions about the role of AI in hiring practices, particularly in fields where human interaction is central. While AI offers efficiency and scalability, its application in recruitment remains controversial, with critics citing potential risks of bias, lack of empathy, and negative impacts on candidate experience. The story underscores the ongoing debate over balancing technological innovation with the need for humane and personalized hiring approaches.