First-person column: preschool job applicant says an AI interviewer booted her off when she paused to think, and she later withdrew her application
In a Guardian opinion column published on 12 October 2026, writer Giselle Au-Nhien Nguyen says she was shortlisted for a preschool education role at a sessional kindergarten run by a not-for-profit and was then interviewed by an AI assistant rather than a person. She says that when she paused to think about a question, the system removed her from the interview and she had to restart it, and that its answers to her questions about the role repeated the job advertisement and referred her to a manager. She describes the experience as dystopian and dehumanising and says she felt degraded. She says she withdrew her application by email, explaining why, and had received no response after more than a month. The employer and the interview tool are not named.
- AI system
- Unidentified AI job-interview tool
- Occurred
- Event date unknown
- Reported
- 12 October 2026
- Event location
- Australia
- What the AI did
- Communicated with the person
- Reported harm
- Psychological Distress
- Whose AI use
- An institution’s AI use
- Setting
- Work
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
- 4 claims: 4 reported. 5 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: An AI interview assistant used by a not-for-profit kindergarten operator to interview a shortlisted job applicant by video, with a voice that asked questions, ended the session when the applicant paused, and answered her questions with text from the job advertisement
What Happened
The application. The author writes that after completing the first year of a master's degree in early childhood and primary teaching she applied for a preschool education role at a sessional kindergarten managed by a not-for-profit, and that her excitement at being shortlisted faded when she realised she would be speaking with an AI assistant.
The interview. She writes that a disembodied voice greeted her by name, that she found it disconcerting to see only herself on screen, and that when she paused to consider a question 'I was booted off the interview entirely' and had to click the link again to restart. At the end, she writes, her questions about the role 'were all answered with regurgitations from the job ad', and the AI said she would need to speak with a manager for clarification. The AI told her that her video would be reviewed by the company.
The effect. She writes that she could not stop thinking about the experience in the following days, that she 'felt degraded', and that she 'ultimately decided to withdraw my application' and emailed the organisation to explain why. 'It has been over a month and I have received no response.'
Context in the column. She says peers on early childhood forums were shocked, and that the organisation's website used AI-generated photos of educators. She links the role to the childcare crisis in Australia.
Limits. The column is the author's own account in an opinion section. The employer, the interview tool and the interview date are not named, and the organisation's side is not reported.
Reported harm
A preschool job applicant says an AI interview assistant booted her off the interview when she paused to think and answered her questions with text from the job advertisement, that she felt degraded, and that she withdrew her application (first-person opinion column, uncorroborated).
How Harm Occurred
By the author's account, an AI interview assistant conducted her job interview, ended the session when she paused to think, and answered her questions with text from the job advertisement. She says the experience left her feeling degraded and that she withdrew her application.
Outcome
UnknownThe author says she withdrew her application by email and explained why, and that more than a month later the organisation had not responded or acknowledged the email.
What remains unknown
- The employer, the interview tool and its vendor.
- When the interview took place: the column of 12 October 2026 says only 'recently' and that more than a month had passed since she withdrew.
- Whether the employer would have had a person review the recording or hold a later interview with a person.
- Whether the employer received or answered her withdrawal email.
- Whether the system dropped her because of the pause or for another reason, such as a technical fault; the column reports the two in sequence.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The author describes the AI assistant's own conduct in her interview: a voice that asked her questions, ended the session when she paused to think, and answered her questions with text from the job advertisement. She connects that experience to feeling degraded and to withdrawing her application. The relation recorded is the system's exchange with her during the interview. The tool and its vendor are not named.
4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The author says she applied for a preschool education role at a sessional kindergarten managed by a not-for-profit, was shortlisted, and was interviewed by an AI assistant.
Causal attribution. Author's first-person account; the employer is not named and did not respond.
- theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'I applied for a preschool education role and experienced a first: being interviewed by AI'; 'it was at a sessional kindergarten managed by a not-for-profit'
Reported The author says that when she paused to think about a question, the AI interview ended her session and she had to restart it.
Causal attribution. Author's account of the system's behaviour; no recording or log was published.
- theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'so I did just that – and I was booted off the interview entirely. As I clicked the link once more to restart the interview'
Reported The author says the AI answered her questions about the role with text from the job advertisement and told her to speak with a manager for clarification.
Causal attribution. Author's account.
- theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'they were all answered with regurgitations from the job ad. For any clarification, the AI said, I would need to have a conversation with a manager'
Reported The author says she felt degraded, withdrew her application by email explaining why, and had received no response after more than a month.
Causal attribution. Author attributes her withdrawal to the AI interview experience; the employer's view is not reported.
- theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'I felt degraded'; 'I ultimately decided to withdraw my application and emailed the organisation to tell them precisely why. It has been over a month and I have received no response'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- The Guardian (opinion), 12 Oct 2026: Dystopian and dehumanising: that's what it felt like when I was interviewed by an AI assistant(opens in new tab)
s1 · theguardian.com · Opinion · English · Inspected · 12 October 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-13 from theguardian.com (HTTP 200); full column text inspected, no translation and no human reviewer. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Australia. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.
The author ties the kindergarten role to 'the ongoing childcare crisis in Australia' when explaining why outsourcing recruitment of this role is wrong, which places the job and its recruitment in Australia. Her own residence is not stated and is not inferred.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-13: Published as a concrete first-person account by the named author of a national newspaper opinion column, describing what an AI job-interview tool did during her interview and the distress and withdrawal she attributes to it, with attribution and without corroboration. The employer is not named.
People described
A job applicant for a preschool education role, a writer who had completed the first year of a master's degree in early childhood and primary teaching (the column's author, named in the byline)
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person: the author, a job applicant interviewed by a tool the employer chose. She did not choose to use it, so she is counted among other people harmed.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). First-person column: preschool job applicant says an AI interviewer booted her off when she paused to think, and she later withdrew her application. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-australia-preschool-job-applicant-ai-interviewer-ended-session-when-she-paused-withdrew-application-first-person
BibTeX
@misc{2026_australia_preschool_job_applicant_ai_interviewer_ended_session_when_she_paused_withdrew_application_first_person,
title = {First-person column: preschool job applicant says an AI interviewer booted her off when she paused to think, and she later withdrew her application},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-australia-preschool-job-applicant-ai-interviewer-ended-session-when-she-paused-withdrew-application-first-person}
} Related cases
Former NT Police assistant commissioner says an AI-generated sexually explicit video made from her official police photograph circulated among colleagues
Janelle Tonkin, a former assistant commissioner of the Northern Territory Police Force and now president of the Australasian Council of Women and Policing, said in a statement issued on 23 September 2026, after criminal proceedings on the matter were finalised, that in December 2025 she became aware that an AI-generated, sexually explicit video had been created using her official NT Police photograph; ABC News reports that the video was allegedly shared among serving members of the force and that she had taken former colleagues to court over it. She called the experience 'extremely distressing, personally and professionally' and said having her professional portrait 'turned into pornography and circulated among colleagues is something no person should have to experience'. The outcome of the court proceedings is not reported. An NT Police spokesperson said the force does not comment on internal investigations and was legally constrained from commenting on matters before the court, but that the conduct she was subjected to 'was, and always will be, totally unacceptable'; the NT Police Association condemned the conduct. Ms Tonkin said the video sat within a broader set of experiences in the force that she intends to describe later.
Perth woman tells PerthNow men at a Scarborough pub covertly photographed her and a friend and used an AI program to make sexualised images shown to the pair
A Perth woman told PerthNow (report carried by The West Australian and The Nightly, 7 October 2026) that on a Friday night at a Scarborough venue a group of eight to ten men sitting nearby began bantering with her and a friend, and that one of them photographed her without her knowledge, put the photo into an AI program and altered it into sexualised content showing her kissing several of the men. According to her account the men passed the image around and showed it to the two women while laughing, and had also made sexual content from a photo of her friend. The women reported the men to the venue, which banned them, and to Western Australia Police; in messages seen by PerthNow a detective wrote that there was at that point no law covering AI-created photos or media, while a WA Police spokesperson said state legislation criminalises non-consensual distribution of intimate images including AI-altered ones and that a statutory review is considering possession. The man who allegedly made the image later messaged her that he had made it as a joke and apologised. The images are not reported to have been distributed online; the tool is not identified; the account is the woman's own, with the man's private messages and the police correspondence as described by the newspaper.
Thanh Hóa, Vietnam: police say nearly 20 people were threatened with fabricated sexual images of themselves unless they paid; one demand was 1.5 billion dong
Thanh Hóa provincial police said on 3 October 2026 that their cybersecurity and high-tech crime division had, since the start of October, received reports from nearly 20 people threatened with extortion using sexual images and videos spliced from their own photos, which senders threatened to publish unless money was transferred. One victim was asked for as much as 1.5 billion dong, and officials, including commune-level leaders, were among the targets. The police release says the material was made with technology; Báo Thanh Hóa, reporting information compiled from the same police division, says the senders used AI and deepfake technology to put victims' faces onto sexual images. No payment, arrest or named victim is reported.
Toronto: a woman says Meta disabled her Facebook and Instagram accounts and that its AI support chatbots told her a review failed and closed her paid ticket
A Toronto woman told The Canadian Press (29 September 2026) and CBC News (1 October 2026) that Meta permanently disabled her 20-year-old Facebook account and two Instagram accounts on 24 September without giving a reason beyond saying her Facebook account did not follow its rules. She says she could reach only Meta's AI support chatbots. One told her the review she requested was unsuccessful; she told CBC that within minutes of pressing the appeal button she was told her case was closed and she could not appeal again. She then paid for the standard Meta Verified subscription expecting human support, and its support chatbot closed her ticket and told her she had reached her limit of support interactions. She describes losing 20 years of memories and contacts as isolating and says she has lost client opportunities for her side business. She suspects an attempted hack. Meta did not comment on her case to either outlet, and no restoration is reported.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.