Should AI Decide Who Gets Hired?

It was a rainy Tuesday morning in London when Mary sat nervously in front of her laptop, preparing for what she thought would be a virtual interview. She had applied for a project manager role at a well-known tech firm. But when the screen loaded, she was greeted not by a smiling recruiter but by an AI-powered interview bot.

There were no friendly handshakes, no casual small talk. Instead, a polished system guided her through a list of questions while the algorithm silently analysed her tone, expressions, and word choice. Every blink, every pause, and every inflection was being scored.

The next day, an email landed in her inbox: “We regret to inform you…”

No feedback. No explanation. Just a decision made entirely by artificial intelligence.

In another part of the city, James, the hiring manager, was thrilled. The AI tool had helped him filter through over 800 applications in just a few hours. It promised efficiency, objectivity, and consistency but qualities human recruiters sometimes lack.

For the company, it was a revolution: no human fatigue, no emotional bias, no wasted time on unqualified candidates. But while the algorithm had saved time, it had also quietly dismissed Mary someone with ten years of solid experience managing diverse teams.

The AI had flagged her for “low confidence” because of her Nigerian accent and her tendency to pause before answering complex questions. To the system, these were red flags. To anyone else, they were signs of thoughtfulness and humility. James never even saw her name.

AI in hiring is built on data and that data often reflects human history. If past hiring data shows bias (and it often does), the AI may unintentionally learn to repeat it.

We’ve seen examples where algorithms favoured male applicants because the training data came from historically male-dominated industries. Or where facial recognition systems struggled to interpret darker skin tones accurately.

So, while AI promises fairness, it can also quietly amplify discrimination just behind a digital curtain.

To be honest: AI is not the villain. It has made hiring faster, streamlined recruitment, and helped identify skills that humans might overlook. Some companies use AI responsibly as a support tool, not a decision-maker.

But problems arise when we forget that humans design, train, and interpret these systems. Machines lack empathy. They cannot perceive context. They do not understand potential, passion, or perseverance as they very traits that often define great employees.

Mary’s story is not just about one rejection. It’s a question of ethics, trust, and balance. Should we automate the process of judging people’s worth, or should technology simply help us do it better?

The answer might lie somewhere in between. AI can handle repetitive screening tasks and highlight patterns that humans might miss. But final decisions should involve human recruiters who bring emotional intelligence and ethical reflection into the process. Hiring should never lose its human heart.

If you were in Mary’s shoes, would you trust an AI to decide your career fate?

And if you were James, would you rely on data or your instincts to pick the right person?

Now over to you!

Do you think HR professionals should depend solely on AI hiring systems, or should humans always have the final say?

Share your thoughts in the comment section below. I would love to hear your perspective.