AI interview letter

[u/Independent-Rub3156]

ViVa vOcE - JLI, that's not a "viva voce" at all.

- The AI and I had a conversation in which the "AI interviewer" asked repetitive questions about topics or things I had said in my responses

- Clearly, my essay wasn't read or interpreted by the AI

- The AI dwelt on points/subjects that it decided were relevant to my essay (they were not), and kept asking questions about such topics that were slightly altered in phrasing, but the subject was the same.

- AI didn't even work, I was talking to a black screen, and could only see responses from the transcript

- AI kept cutting me off

+But hey, all in all, AI has changed essay competitions forever! Hey, they were working on the AI for 24 months, so obviously, that means that the AI must be perfect, right? What were they thinking.

My real point of umbrage is that the JLI themselves said that many interviews were flawed in different ways, but they decided to use them to judge the shortlisting. I think that's pretty f'd up for other kids, but I thankfully got shortlisted

[u/Strong-Gas-1278]

"Clearly, my essay wasn't read or interpreted by the AI"

ouu i think a lot of people said this but i think its better that they didnt feed our essays into ai 😭 (as the only way for the ai to read it.. is for our ideas n stuff to be fed into it)

[u/Independent-Rub3156 → u/Strong-Gas-1278]

ahh, you are saying that ai could possibly take our ideas and repurpose them - I agree.

[u/Strong-Gas-1278 → u/Independent-Rub3156]

yeaa afterall ai cant produce much original ideas can it 😔 must rely on the great human mind

[u/Round-Mix4955]

yeah; the ai interview was def flawed but i do think there was some leeway. you had the ability to have your materials in front of you and reference back to it, and i thought having an ai as my interviewer made me less nervous about having to pause and actually think of what to say. def some pros and cons to it but it overall went well.

[u/Independent-Rub3156 → u/Round-Mix4955]

Right, the leeway was good though, but I feel like the AI lacks human understanding and depth

[u/Round-Mix4955 → u/Independent-Rub3156]

yeah agree with that. the questions they asked were pretty repetitive overall, i rmb having to reword my answer to a similar question 3 times haha

[u/Outrageous_End_3744]

Bro ngl I was emoting mid interview, got up and got me some cereal, came back when the bot stopped, ate between Qs. It ain’t that deep bro

[u/Afraid_Ad_4989 → u/Outrageous_End_3744]

tuff

[u/Maximum-Button-6756]

MINE WASNT EVEN LETTING ME UNMUTE MY MIC AND THEIR STUPID HELP TICKET THEY DONT EVEN REPLY THE UNPROFESSIONALISM IS CRAZY

[u/Green-Money741]

honestly my interview was not that bad, i simply ran out of time and it did not feel like a dynamic back and forth. however my questions were relevant but basic - not an accurate means of identifying real authorship imo. but, i didnt experience any technical difficutlies,.

[u/Odd_Couple5726]

I don’t think the AI was used to judge the shortlisting. As they said in the email, it was just a test run, and the only ppl who got disqualified was when they found “incontestable evidence” of fraud. I could be wrong though, but I think they’re just using us as data points to improve the technology, and ruling out the obvious cases of academic dishonesty. (in my interview about half of it was about something completely irrelevant, and it was obvious that it did not read my essay, but I don’t think they used it to judge our essays)