AI is helping people in different ways. This is also the “help” of software developers and engineers, apparently, not only in their work, but also to cheat their way through an SDE job interview. So it seems widely that big technology companies, including Google, are now going to in-commercial job interviews from virtual interviews, because it is more difficult for in-tradition candidates to use something like a cloule while answering questions.

In a way, AI has opened doors for new ways to cheat. These days candidates are no longer searching for web for answer in any other tab; They are using sophisticated AI devices to generate live reactions, solve coding questions in real time, and even manipulate their voice or appearance. It has abandoned some of the largest technical companies including Google, Amazon and Cisco, which are re -preparing their recruitment process. For example, Google has confirmed that it will bring back the in-practice interview for some roles, as officials say that it has become difficult to rely in the age of virtual hiring AI.

One of the devices that have brought the issue of cheating AI into solidity is clearly. It was built by Chungin “Roy” Lee, a student of Columbia University, who was later expelled from his college on the dispute. Cluely was originally designed to help users cheat in coding interviews, which in real -time raising the interviews by generating answers and signs, but Lee later expanded his scope, called it “literally cheating for everything”.

In interviews, Lee has argued that the fraud as seen today will finally become a standard exercise, “We say ‘cheat on everything’ because, ironically, the irony is that it is the only way to a future that is really appropriate.” Of course, his ideas have divided ideas and have raised questions about whether AI aid is indispensable or a dangerous shortcut in hiring.

Really vs truly

In response, some other students of Columbia University actually developed an anti-chitting tool. Unlike Cluely, AI -ssified behavior was actually designed during virtual interview to detect and prevent. It works by monitoring inputs such as browser activity, microphones and screen access during a session, causing a score to flagged suspicious behavior. Its creators say that this idea is not to automatically accuse candidates, but to promote transparency in recruitment, companies offer a way to balance fairness against the increasing use of AI in interviews.

So how do the candidates cheat?

A part of cheating includes live interview assistants. Tools such as the final round AI or interview sidekick can hear interviewer’s questions, transfer them immediately, and can generate job details and covered answers to CV. The candidates simply read him back as if he thought of him on the spot. Others rely on hidden screen or secondary devices, showing indications and answers excluding the camera view. More judiciously, candidates can paste interview questions in generative AI Chatbot like chat or Gemini to get the answers prepared. Recruithers often raise on this when they notice unnatural stagnation or sudden tab-switching.

When it comes to technical roles, AI cheating takes a different form. Botts are specially created for coding assessment that can generate quietly solutions while remaining uncontrolled on screen-sharing platforms. Even mainstream developer tools such as Github Copilot, Amazon Q Developer, or Google’s Vertex AI can be misused during live trials, which provides immediate code snipet that candidates are present as their own. For a recruiter, it may look like a quick problem-solution, but in fact, it may be a heavy lifting AI.

Ways do not stop at lessons and codes. Some candidates use deepfack-style overlays to seem that they are speaking in real time, even when video or audio is pre-riddled. Vioce modification software such as Vioceds allows people to be more confident than naturally or confident. In extreme cases, “proxy interview” someone else has been included in interviewing with the help of AI-related video and audio tricks.

In favor and against it

With the spread of these practices, social media is echoing with opinion. A user on X wrote, “Cheating in a tech interview is exploding. Why? Because most of the interviews are still virtual, and the job market is cruel that candidates are starting to resort to the necessary required.”

Other, however, argue that it is just the natural use of equipment. Another user compared it to the calculator debate decades ago, saying, “One answer is an answer. You need information. I have provided it. The instrument is irrelevant.”

On the other hand, some candidates welcome push to face-to-face formats. A user placed it directly, “Total understands! AI cheating has become so sophisticated that distance interviews have lost their integrity. The problem of face-to-face shows the skills and authentic communication to solve the problem.”

Big tech leaders are also weighting on the situation. Google employees raised themselves during an internal town hall in February earlier this year.

Brian Ong, the vice president of the recruitment of Google, admitted that the online interviews were fast, “We definitely have more work to do more work that AI is now more prevalent in the interview process.”

CEO Sundar Pichai supported the Lex Fridman Podcast earlier this year, saying, “We all do hybrid work, I think it is worth thinking about some excerpts from the interview. I think it will help both candidates understand the culture of Google and I think it is good for both sides.” He confirmed that the roles related to coding would require at least one-person round.

Other major companies are also taking equal steps. Amazon asks candidates to formally confirm that they will not use AI equipment during the interview. Anthropic has banned the use of AI in hiring its work. Deloite and McKins’ have gone back to in-tradition sessions for some positions, and Cisco has restored the onsite round for technical roles.

AI has changed the job interview work. For candidates, this can be an easy way to handle a tough interview. For recruitors, it has become difficult to explain whether the answer is coming from the person or from the AI ​​tool. This dilemma is motivating companies to reconsider how they conduct the interview and what the process of keeping a proper work should be seen today.