The Unexpected About-Face: A Comedian Declines an AI-Powered Interview
In a move that has sparked conversations across the creative and tech communities, a comedian and writer from Beverley, East Yorkshire, publicly turned down a freelance copywriting interview after learning that the questions would be generated by artificial intelligence. The decision, while personal, highlights a growing tension between human creativity and AI-driven recruitment processes.
Richard Stott, known for his wit and storytelling, had applied for a freelance copywriting role, hoping to bring a human voice to a client’s brand. When the interview was revealed to be AI-driven, he chose to withdraw. The incident quickly drew attention on social media and in industry circles, raising questions about the role of AI in hiring and whether machines can adequately assess a candidate’s creativity, nuance, and fit.
What This Says About AI in Recruitment
The case underscores a broader trend: companies increasingly test new tools to streamline recruitment, from AI-generated questions to automated screening. Proponents argue that AI can standardize assessments, reduce bias, and speed up the process. Critics counter that creative roles, like copywriting and comedy, often rely on instincts, humor, and risky, original thinking that may be hard to measure through standardized AI prompts.
For freelancers and job seekers, the situation creates a dilemma. On one hand, AI interview formats can offer a level playing field, ensuring every candidate faces similar prompts. On the other, candidates who value the human connection—empathy, tone, and a sense of cultural timing—may feel the process is sterile or disingenuous. Stott’s decision highlights a boundary some professionals are drawing: if the interview reduces the candidate to a series of algorithmic responses, will the end product truly reflect their capabilities?
Implications for Creatives and Employers
Creatives often thrive on storytelling, punchy insights, and the ability to pivot ideas in a live conversation. An AI question set can be efficient, but it may not capture the spontaneity or ethical judgment essential to freelance copywriting. Employers must weigh efficiency against the risk of misaligning with talent who demand a more authentic evaluation process.
From an ethical standpoint, transparency is key. If AI tools are used to assess candidates, candidates should know how their data is processed, how prompts are generated, and what aspects of their responses are weighed most heavily. Companies should also consider a hybrid approach: initial AI screening to handle mundane tasks, followed by human-led interviews to explore creativity, tone, and problem-solving in depth.
The Human-Centered Interview Debate
Many job seekers, especially in freelance or creative fields, argue that human-centered interviews better reveal a person’s potential. A candidate can demonstrate adaptability, humor, and a nuanced understanding of audience needs—qualities that are often essential in ad copy and performance-driven writing.
Stott’s experience resonates with a growing subset of professionals who want to retain human judgment in recruitment. It isn’t a blanket rejection of AI, but a call for balance: use AI as a tool, not a substitute for human insight. The conversation invites companies to craft interview processes that respect both operational efficiency and the unpredictable, human nature of creative work.
What Candidates Can Expect Moving Forward
For job seekers, the episode suggests several practical steps. Ask about interview formats upfront, request a human-led debrief, and prepare to showcase your work in ways that transcend scripted prompts. For employers, the takeaway is to design interviews that value originality and emotional intelligence, even if AI handles some screening tasks.
As AI becomes more embedded in hiring, the event serves as a reminder that technology should augment, not erode, the human elements of recruitment. For comedians, writers, and other creatives, the question isn’t whether AI can imitate behavior, but whether it can reliably judge the spark that makes great work possible.
Bottom Line
Richard Stott’s decision to walk away from an AI-driven interview spotlights an important conversation about fairness, creativity, and the future of work. In a landscape where machines can assist but not fully replace human judgment, many professionals will likely seek hybrid approaches that preserve authentic assessment while embracing the efficiency AI promises.
