Some job seekers may be better off chatting with the bot.
A new study found that applicants interviewed by AI voice agents were 12% more likely to get a job offer than those screened by human recruiters. It was also likely that he would stick 30 days after he actually started working.
Professional recruiters were betting on themselves in this employment experiment. The AI proved they were wrong.
The study found that when given the option, 78% of applicants chose AI interviewers over human recruiters.
Brian Javarian, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth Business School, and Luca Henkel, an action economist at Erasmus University Rotterdam, have partnered with PSG Global Solutions, a global recruiter for PIT AI for human recruiters in a large-scale employment experiment.
trial Over 70,000 applicants compete for an entry-level customer service role across 48 job openings in the Philippines. The work was in 23 Fortune 500 companies and 20 European companies.
Applicants were randomly assigned to one of three interview criteria. It can be a human recruiter, an AI recruiter, or an option between the two.
In all cases, human recruiters ultimately made employment decisions after reviewing transcripts and standardized tests of language and analytical skills. Its design allowed researchers to isolate one variable: interview conversations.
Both humans and AI followed the same interview guide. It started with eligibility questions, then moved on to career goals and work experience, and ended with job details. However, the results diverged.
Why AI is better
Applicants interviewed by AI recruiters received job openings in 9.73% of cases, compared to 8.7% under human recruiters.
Related Stories
Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know
Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know
The study also found that they were 18% more likely to start work in 30 days, and 17% were still likely to be hired.
Using natural language processing, researchers have found that AI interviews are more structured, covering more topics and encouraging richer answers. The AIRED interviews elicited the types of cues that human recruiters usually reward, like conversational depth, minimizing weak signals such as filler responses and unrelated questions.
Recruiters who reviewed the transcript scored candidates who were interviewed more than those who interviewed.
“AIRED has elicited more employment-related information,” wrote Jabarian and Henkel, adding that applicants also reported similar satisfaction with AI recruiters compared to humans.
But the system wasn't perfect. Approximately 5% of applicants ended the interview after realising they were talking to the AI, and in 7% the agents encountered technical issues. The applicant also rated the interaction as less “natural” than talking to humans.
Javarian and Henkel did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.
How AI is changing employment
AI is increasingly used in job search and hiring processes. Candidates are leaning on it to adjust their resume, while employers are sifting through the thousands of applications they receive using it.
Emily Dej, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper Business School, specializing in AI communication and etiquette, told Business Insider in May that the AI-powered video interview would likely become more common as companies try to streamline and automate the early employment stage.
Whenever technology promises to save time and money and make everything faster, she said, “I pursue it by default — there's a kind of inevitability to it.”
Tech investors said AI might support adoption.
Former general partner of the benchmark, Victor Lazarute said in an episode of the “Twenty Minute VC” podcast released in April that recruiters should be particularly nervous about AI being replaced by work.
He said that AI models are quicker than people interviewing candidates.
But not everyone is for sale. A Business Insider Report published Monday said hiring managers are flooded with applications, many of which are optimized to fit perfectly, but hundreds of frustrated job seekers reported thousands of failed applications.
Hatim Rahman, an associate professor at Northwestern University's management and organization, said the AI hired a “cat and mouse game” between candidates and employers.
As a result, there is a push towards finding “more human signals in both the search and application processes,” he added.
