As the class of 2025 graduates into one of the most challenging job markets in recent years, many are turning to AI tools during live job interviews. This trend has prompted a surge of startups eager to provide these resources. Whether this practice is seen as cheating or a smart strategy varies depending on one’s perspective at the hiring table, but the underlying statistics are undeniable.
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, unemployment rates among recent college graduates, aged 22 to 27, reached 5.7 percent by the end of 2025, which is notably higher than the national average of 4.2 percent. Additionally, the rate of underemployment—where graduates find jobs that do not require a degree—hit 42.5 percent, the highest it has been since 2020. The tech industry, once a favored destination for ambitious graduates, experienced a loss of approximately 245,000 jobs in 2025, with another 59,000 lost in just the first quarter of 2026.
The graduates entering this tough job market have witnessed older peers being hired and then laid off at major firms like Meta, Amazon, and Google within a mere 18 months. The lesson they learned was clear: mere competence and loyalty offer little protection. As a result, they now come equipped with advanced technology that universities have urged them to master over the past four years.
The Tools and Companies Behind the Trend
The rise of AI-assisted interviewing was highlighted recently by a press release from LockedIn AI, a startup offering a product named DUO. This service merges real-time AI transcription of interview questions with a human coach who can observe the candidate’s screen and provide strategic advice during the interview. While framed as a reflection of generational resilience, the release primarily served as an advertisement for the product.
LockedIn AI is not working alone. Its founder, Kagehiro Mitsuyami, also co-founded Final Round AI, which offers a similar service. Both companies have faced scrutiny over the authenticity of their marketing, with reports suggesting some reviews on Trustpilot may be AI-generated, and independent reviewers citing issues where the software is visible to interviewers when candidates switch between applications. A Gartner survey of 3,000 job seekers revealed that six percent admitted to engaging in interview fraud, such as having someone impersonate them during interviews. Additionally, 59 percent of hiring managers suspect candidates of using AI to misrepresent their qualifications.
The demand for these tools is escalating, largely because the conditions that necessitate them are deteriorating rather than improving. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, 45 percent of employers view the job market for the class of 2026 as “fair,” a decline from “good” the previous year. Projections for hiring new graduates are stagnant, showing just 1.6 percent growth. For candidates submitting countless applications and facing interview rates under two percent, the urge to utilize every possible advantage is significant.
The Argument of Hypocrisy
A key argument supporting AI-assisted interviews centers on the inconsistency in how tech companies engage with AI technologies. Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, announced during an April 2025 earnings call that over 30 percent of the company’s new code is now created with AI assistance, an increase from 25 percent six months earlier. Similarly, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta encourage their engineers to utilize AI coding tools in their daily tasks. Applicant tracking systems that use AI filter and reject resumes before a human lays eyes on them, automating the hiring pipeline from start to finish—except for the candidates themselves.
For graduates who have been warned that AI fluency will shape their careers, being required to act as if this technology doesn’t exist in a 45-minute interview feels less like an evaluation of competence and more like an exercise in compliance. Ironically, these companies are often the same ones that expect new hires to integrate AI tools into their work from day one.
While this argument is certainly compelling, it has its limitations. There is an important distinction between employing AI to enhance coding efficiency and leveraging it to respond to questions concerning one’s own experiences, judgment, and problem-solving abilities. In theory, an interview should facilitate a conversation aimed at assessing what a candidate knows and how they think. Outsourcing those responses to a language model or a coach whispering suggestions undermines the purpose of the interview, regardless of how unfair the current structure may be.
The Response from Employers
In response to these developments, companies are adapting their hiring practices. Data shows that in-person interview rounds increased from 24 percent in 2022 to 38 percent in 2025. Seventy-two percent of recruiting leaders now include at least one in-person stage specifically to combat AI-assisted job fraud. Some organizations have turned to whiteboard exercises, pair programming sessions, and less structured discussions to make it more challenging for candidates to use real-time assistance during interviews.
The deeper question remains whether the interview itself is the right method for evaluating candidates in an AI-driven job market. If the aim is to assess what candidates can produce using the tools they will actually employ in their roles, then restricting those tools during evaluation appears illogical. Conversely, if the goal is to evaluate fundamental cognitive abilities and domain knowledge, then AI assistance negates the purpose entirely. Many interviews attempt to assess both, which is why the current system often leaves everyone dissatisfied.
Ultimately, the class of 2025 did not create this predicament. They stepped into a job market fundamentally altered by pandemic-driven overhiring, aggressive budget cuts, and a rapidly evolving AI revolution that is both generating and eliminating opportunities at a speed that neither employers nor candidates have fully processed. Their choice to incorporate AI during interviews is not an act of defiance; it is a rational response in a system that has made it clear, repeatedly, that AI is indispensable. The fact that the system now protests their insistence on this understanding is certainly worth reflecting upon.
