Ask for Specific Personal Experiences<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWe can usually tell when someone is relying on an AI tool like ChatGPT during interviews to answer follow-up questions. Many AI-generated responses sound polished but there is a lack of depth. Therefore, we ask for specific personal experiences. For example, if a candidate talks about handling a tough customer, we will ask, “What did the customer say, and how did you respond at that moment?” If their answer remains unclear or feels like a response to the textbook, it raises a red flag.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another thing we do is throw in unexpected questions. If they mention working under tight deadlines, we might ask, “What was one mistake you made under pressure, and what did you learn from it?” People who have real experience can recall small but meaningful details. Those relying on AI often struggle to give a natural-sounding response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We don’t mind if candidates use AI to prepare, but during an interview, we need to see how they actually think and communicate. A good answer isn’t just well-structured; it should feel real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Vikrant](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26190654\/Vikrant-Bhalodia-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nVikrant Bhalodia<\/a>
Head of Marketing & People Ops, WeblineIndia<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nUse Follow-Up Questions for Depth<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAs I work in a tech company, I come across many assignments or answers that are AI-generated. A common strategy to identify candidates using AI tools like ChatGPT during an interview is to ask follow-up questions that require deep reasoning, real-world examples, or personal experiences. Live coding tests, scenario-based problem-solving, and behavioral questions can also help distinguish genuine expertise from AI-generated answers. Also, you can use AI-detection tools to analyze written responses for AI-generated patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, if a candidate provides a textbook-style response, the interviewer can ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Can you give me a real-world example from your experience?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. How did you personally apply this concept in a previous role?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Akshita](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26191109\/Akshita-Makhni-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAkshita Makhni<\/a>
HR Head, Bigohtech<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nFocus on Real-World Application<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA strong interview process focuses on real-world application and critical thinking. Instead of relying solely on traditional Q&A, I use scenario-based questions that require candidates to explain their thought process, solve problems in real-time, or analyze real SEO challenges. Live exercises, where they optimize a piece of content or interpret SEO data on the spot, make it clear who truly understands the field. While AI tools can assist with research, genuine expertise comes through when candidates can articulate complex concepts, adapt strategies, and demonstrate hands-on experience without relying on pre-generated responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Chris](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/10143050\/chris-raulf.jpeg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nChris Raulf<\/a>
International AI and SEO Expert | Founder & President, Boulder SEO Marketing<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nSeek Personal Stories and Insights<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nOne strategy I use is asking for personal stories, real-world examples, or unique insights that AI tools typically struggle to generate authentically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I’ve found that when responses include specific experiences, behind-the-scenes challenges, or nuanced industry perspectives, it’s much easier to tell if a person is genuinely answering versus relying on AI-generated content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I also look for natural human quirks\u2014like slight contradictions, informal phrasing, or emotional depth\u2014that AI responses often lack. Sometimes, I’ll ask follow-up questions that require expanding on a previous point to see if the person can elaborate naturally. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI tools are great, but they tend to generalize\u2014authentic human expertise stands out through depth, originality, and lived experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Anatolii](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26191312\/Anatolii-Ulitovskyi-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nAnatolii Ulitovskyi<\/a>
Founder, Unmiss<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nEvaluate AI Integration with Expertise<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nWe don’t prohibit AI tools like ChatGPT. In today’s hiring landscape, banning these technologies outright would actually diminish the value of candidates, as more industries now expect professionals to use AI thoughtfully and effectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Thoughtfully is the key word. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We seek individuals who use AI to enhance their abilities\u2014not replace them. As automation becomes increasingly embedded in the workforce, success hinges on a candidate’s ability to integrate AI with their own expertise, balancing human insight with machine efficiency. Nearly every industry will demand this skill in the future, making adaptability and strategic AI usage critical. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Spotting those who rely on AI as a crutch rather than a complement is surprisingly easy. Candidates who substitute AI for genuine ability often struggle with follow-up questions and falter in real-world scenarios where knowledge and experience must be demonstrated. That’s why, for us, the verbal interview is just the starting point. If a candidate can’t back up their skills through practical application, that’s a major red flag. AI can be an asset\u2014but only when paired with real expertise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Michael](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26191353\/Michael-Moran-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nMichael Moran<\/a>
Owner and President, Green Lion Search<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nThrow in Nonsense Prompts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAs the person responsible for recruitment, I interview many candidates to ensure we bring in people who can think on their feet and adapt to unpredictable situations. AI-generated responses tend to be structured, overly polished, and logical to a fault. To filter out AI-generated answers, I like to throw in nonsense prompts, such as, “How would you sell a cloud to a fish?” or “If gravity suddenly reversed for an hour, what would be your first move?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI tools usually try to give a structured, rational answer, but a human will lean into the absurdity and come up with something creative or humorous. Someone with strong problem-solving skills might treat it like a real challenge and pitch an imaginative solution, while others might turn it into a joke or push back on the premise. Either way, it gives me a sense of how they think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These prompts allow me to identify AI-generated responses while also showing how a candidate handles unexpected or unconventional challenges. People who can take a curveball like this in stride are usually the ones who thrive in dynamic environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Hugh](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26191627\/Hugh-Dixon-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nHugh Dixon<\/a>
Marketing Manager, PSS International Removals<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nDiscuss Recent Project Specifics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAsking candidates to walk through the specifics of a recent project is often revealing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I pay attention to how they describe their thought process and the technical decisions involved. When someone offers a generic response about designing a structure for extreme weather without explaining the materials used or how they ensured safety, I immediately know something’s off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The thing is AI tools often produce these vague answers that do not capture the depth of real-world problem-solving. Last year, I interviewed a candidate who described building a structure for high winds but did not mention any of the testing we do on materials. That is a huge gap that any experienced professional would fill in right away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I find the most reliable method is asking candidates to explain how they would approach designing under specific, challenging conditions. Genuine answers will always be rooted in real experience\u2014talking about exact methods, regulations and the challenges faced during implementation. If they don’t bring that level of specificity, it is likely that AI had a hand in crafting their response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Barbara](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26192700\/Barbara-Robinson-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBarbara Robinson<\/a>
Marketing Manager, Weather Solve<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nAsk About Personal Failures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nMy go-to strategy is what I call \u201cpersonal failure questioning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I’ll ask candidates to share a specific professional setback and what they learned from it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Real humans tell these stories with emotional texture\u2014they’ll hesitate at painful parts, include irrelevant details, or laugh uncomfortably about their mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI responses tend to be too polished, too logical, and lack authentic vulnerability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just last month, we spotted a candidate who submitted flawless written answers but in the video follow-up couldn’t elaborate on the \u201cfailure story\u201d they’d supposedly experienced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Their discomfort was telling\u2014not from recalling a failure, but from being caught.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We’ve found about a quarter of our applicants attempt to use AI tools this way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The human touch in storytelling\u2014those small imperfections and emotional nuances\u2014simply can’t be replicated by current AI systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Vukasin](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26215954\/Vukasin-Ilic-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nVukasin Ilic<\/a>
SEO Consultant & CEO, Digital Media Lab<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nIntroduce Nonexistent or Contradictory Concepts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nA highly effective strategy to detect AI-generated answers is to introduce a nonexistent or contradictory concept in the interview question. AI models, such as ChatGPT, are designed to generate plausible-sounding responses based on patterns, which means they may confidently fabricate explanations instead of recognizing misinformation or logical contradictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, an interviewer might ask: “How would you apply the Delta-Sigma Leadership Model to improve team collaboration?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since this leadership model does not exist, an AI-generated response will likely attempt to justify or explain it with structured reasoning. A genuine candidate, however, would likely ask for clarification or admit they are unfamiliar with the term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, a contradictory statement can reveal AI reliance. Consider asking: “We believe micromanagement is the key to productivity. How do you apply this leadership principle?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An AI-generated response might attempt to rationalize micromanagement instead of recognizing the contradiction and pushing back. A real candidate with experience in leadership would likely challenge the assumption or provide a nuanced response explaining why micromanagement is generally ineffective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By incorporating these traps, interviewers can assess a candidate’s ability to think critically rather than rely on AI-generated, overly polished responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Tooba](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26220035\/Tooba-Jalalidil-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nTooba Jalalidil<\/a>
Co-Founder, Seekario.ai<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nIncorporate Live Problem-Solving Sessions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nOne effective way to identify candidates relying too heavily on AI tools like ChatGPT is to incorporate live problem-solving sessions. We’ve moved away from simple take-home tests and instead ask candidates to walk us through their thought process in real time. A candidate might receive a coding challenge in advance, but during the interview, they need to explain their approach, discuss edge cases, and refine their solution based on feedback. This method helps distinguish those who understand the problem from those who simply pasted an AI-generated answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another strategy is to design assessments that focus on code review instead of just writing code. In the real world, developers spend significant time evaluating and improving existing code. We provide candidates with a snippet\u2014sometimes even AI-generated\u2014and ask them to analyze its quality, identify potential issues, and suggest improvements. This approach shifts the focus from simply producing code to demonstrating critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It also makes AI assistance less of a shortcut and more of a tool that candidates must use wisely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI tools aren’t going away, and we recognize that good developers will know how to use them effectively. Instead of banning AI, we encourage its thoughtful use while making sure candidates still demonstrate real expertise. Interview questions should reflect real job challenges\u2014requiring judgment, debugging skills, and adaptability. We see this as a way to hire stronger engineers who can work smarter, not just those who can memorize solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Elmo](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/10150427\/elmo-taddeo.jpeg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nElmo Taddeo<\/a>
CEO, Parachute<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nTest for Strong Opinions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAI-generated answers often avoid taking a strong position. They are designed to sound neutral and balanced, which makes them easy to spot in an interview setting. To test this, I ask candidates questions that require an opinion, such as their thoughts on an industry trend or a difficult decision they had to make. If the answer feels vague, I ask them to justify their stance with a specific example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A real person should have personal insights and a clear point of view. AI responses tend to stay safe and noncommittal. If someone struggles to provide a clear reason behind their opinion, it usually means they don’t fully understand the topic or are relying on AI-generated content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Linzi](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26220144\/Linzi-Oliver-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nLinzi Oliver<\/a>
Commercial Marketing Manager, HorseClicks<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nGive Tasks Requiring ReCReDa<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\nGive tasks that require ReCReDa (research, creativity, and data) because no AI has cracked all three perfectly. Sometimes, it fabricates data, sometimes it invents research, and in creativity, it outright hallucinates. It’s nowhere near even a freshman-level copywriter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, when we recently hired copywriters, we gave finalists a paid task that blended all three aspects. One question was: “If Ohh My Brand were a movie, what would be its theme song?”\u2014testing originality and brand understanding. Another was: “How many personal branding agencies exist today that serve more than 100+ clients?”\u2014hecking research skills and sourcing accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These tasks make it clear who’s thinking and who’s letting AI think for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"Bhavik](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/26220222\/Bhavik-Sarkhedi-Featured.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nBhavik Sarkhedi<\/a>
Founder & Content Lead, Ohh My Brand<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\nVikrant Bhalodia<\/a> As I work in a tech company, I come across many assignments or answers that are AI-generated. A common strategy to identify candidates using AI tools like ChatGPT during an interview is to ask follow-up questions that require deep reasoning, real-world examples, or personal experiences. Live coding tests, scenario-based problem-solving, and behavioral questions can also help distinguish genuine expertise from AI-generated answers. Also, you can use AI-detection tools to analyze written responses for AI-generated patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, if a candidate provides a textbook-style response, the interviewer can ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Can you give me a real-world example from your experience?<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. How did you personally apply this concept in a previous role?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Akshita Makhni<\/a> A strong interview process focuses on real-world application and critical thinking. Instead of relying solely on traditional Q&A, I use scenario-based questions that require candidates to explain their thought process, solve problems in real-time, or analyze real SEO challenges. Live exercises, where they optimize a piece of content or interpret SEO data on the spot, make it clear who truly understands the field. While AI tools can assist with research, genuine expertise comes through when candidates can articulate complex concepts, adapt strategies, and demonstrate hands-on experience without relying on pre-generated responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chris Raulf<\/a> One strategy I use is asking for personal stories, real-world examples, or unique insights that AI tools typically struggle to generate authentically. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I’ve found that when responses include specific experiences, behind-the-scenes challenges, or nuanced industry perspectives, it’s much easier to tell if a person is genuinely answering versus relying on AI-generated content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I also look for natural human quirks\u2014like slight contradictions, informal phrasing, or emotional depth\u2014that AI responses often lack. Sometimes, I’ll ask follow-up questions that require expanding on a previous point to see if the person can elaborate naturally. <\/p>\n\n\n\n AI tools are great, but they tend to generalize\u2014authentic human expertise stands out through depth, originality, and lived experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anatolii Ulitovskyi<\/a> We don’t prohibit AI tools like ChatGPT. In today’s hiring landscape, banning these technologies outright would actually diminish the value of candidates, as more industries now expect professionals to use AI thoughtfully and effectively. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Thoughtfully is the key word. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We seek individuals who use AI to enhance their abilities\u2014not replace them. As automation becomes increasingly embedded in the workforce, success hinges on a candidate’s ability to integrate AI with their own expertise, balancing human insight with machine efficiency. Nearly every industry will demand this skill in the future, making adaptability and strategic AI usage critical. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Spotting those who rely on AI as a crutch rather than a complement is surprisingly easy. Candidates who substitute AI for genuine ability often struggle with follow-up questions and falter in real-world scenarios where knowledge and experience must be demonstrated. That’s why, for us, the verbal interview is just the starting point. If a candidate can’t back up their skills through practical application, that’s a major red flag. AI can be an asset\u2014but only when paired with real expertise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Michael Moran<\/a> As the person responsible for recruitment, I interview many candidates to ensure we bring in people who can think on their feet and adapt to unpredictable situations. AI-generated responses tend to be structured, overly polished, and logical to a fault. To filter out AI-generated answers, I like to throw in nonsense prompts, such as, “How would you sell a cloud to a fish?” or “If gravity suddenly reversed for an hour, what would be your first move?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI tools usually try to give a structured, rational answer, but a human will lean into the absurdity and come up with something creative or humorous. Someone with strong problem-solving skills might treat it like a real challenge and pitch an imaginative solution, while others might turn it into a joke or push back on the premise. Either way, it gives me a sense of how they think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These prompts allow me to identify AI-generated responses while also showing how a candidate handles unexpected or unconventional challenges. People who can take a curveball like this in stride are usually the ones who thrive in dynamic environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hugh Dixon<\/a> Asking candidates to walk through the specifics of a recent project is often revealing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I pay attention to how they describe their thought process and the technical decisions involved. When someone offers a generic response about designing a structure for extreme weather without explaining the materials used or how they ensured safety, I immediately know something’s off. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The thing is AI tools often produce these vague answers that do not capture the depth of real-world problem-solving. Last year, I interviewed a candidate who described building a structure for high winds but did not mention any of the testing we do on materials. That is a huge gap that any experienced professional would fill in right away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I find the most reliable method is asking candidates to explain how they would approach designing under specific, challenging conditions. Genuine answers will always be rooted in real experience\u2014talking about exact methods, regulations and the challenges faced during implementation. If they don’t bring that level of specificity, it is likely that AI had a hand in crafting their response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Barbara Robinson<\/a> My go-to strategy is what I call \u201cpersonal failure questioning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I’ll ask candidates to share a specific professional setback and what they learned from it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Real humans tell these stories with emotional texture\u2014they’ll hesitate at painful parts, include irrelevant details, or laugh uncomfortably about their mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI responses tend to be too polished, too logical, and lack authentic vulnerability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just last month, we spotted a candidate who submitted flawless written answers but in the video follow-up couldn’t elaborate on the \u201cfailure story\u201d they’d supposedly experienced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their discomfort was telling\u2014not from recalling a failure, but from being caught.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We’ve found about a quarter of our applicants attempt to use AI tools this way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The human touch in storytelling\u2014those small imperfections and emotional nuances\u2014simply can’t be replicated by current AI systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vukasin Ilic<\/a> A highly effective strategy to detect AI-generated answers is to introduce a nonexistent or contradictory concept in the interview question. AI models, such as ChatGPT, are designed to generate plausible-sounding responses based on patterns, which means they may confidently fabricate explanations instead of recognizing misinformation or logical contradictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, an interviewer might ask: “How would you apply the Delta-Sigma Leadership Model to improve team collaboration?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since this leadership model does not exist, an AI-generated response will likely attempt to justify or explain it with structured reasoning. A genuine candidate, however, would likely ask for clarification or admit they are unfamiliar with the term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, a contradictory statement can reveal AI reliance. Consider asking: “We believe micromanagement is the key to productivity. How do you apply this leadership principle?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n An AI-generated response might attempt to rationalize micromanagement instead of recognizing the contradiction and pushing back. A real candidate with experience in leadership would likely challenge the assumption or provide a nuanced response explaining why micromanagement is generally ineffective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By incorporating these traps, interviewers can assess a candidate’s ability to think critically rather than rely on AI-generated, overly polished responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tooba Jalalidil<\/a> One effective way to identify candidates relying too heavily on AI tools like ChatGPT is to incorporate live problem-solving sessions. We’ve moved away from simple take-home tests and instead ask candidates to walk us through their thought process in real time. A candidate might receive a coding challenge in advance, but during the interview, they need to explain their approach, discuss edge cases, and refine their solution based on feedback. This method helps distinguish those who understand the problem from those who simply pasted an AI-generated answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another strategy is to design assessments that focus on code review instead of just writing code. In the real world, developers spend significant time evaluating and improving existing code. We provide candidates with a snippet\u2014sometimes even AI-generated\u2014and ask them to analyze its quality, identify potential issues, and suggest improvements. This approach shifts the focus from simply producing code to demonstrating critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It also makes AI assistance less of a shortcut and more of a tool that candidates must use wisely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI tools aren’t going away, and we recognize that good developers will know how to use them effectively. Instead of banning AI, we encourage its thoughtful use while making sure candidates still demonstrate real expertise. Interview questions should reflect real job challenges\u2014requiring judgment, debugging skills, and adaptability. We see this as a way to hire stronger engineers who can work smarter, not just those who can memorize solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Elmo Taddeo<\/a> AI-generated answers often avoid taking a strong position. They are designed to sound neutral and balanced, which makes them easy to spot in an interview setting. To test this, I ask candidates questions that require an opinion, such as their thoughts on an industry trend or a difficult decision they had to make. If the answer feels vague, I ask them to justify their stance with a specific example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A real person should have personal insights and a clear point of view. AI responses tend to stay safe and noncommittal. If someone struggles to provide a clear reason behind their opinion, it usually means they don’t fully understand the topic or are relying on AI-generated content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Linzi Oliver<\/a> Give tasks that require ReCReDa (research, creativity, and data) because no AI has cracked all three perfectly. Sometimes, it fabricates data, sometimes it invents research, and in creativity, it outright hallucinates. It’s nowhere near even a freshman-level copywriter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, when we recently hired copywriters, we gave finalists a paid task that blended all three aspects. One question was: “If Ohh My Brand were a movie, what would be its theme song?”\u2014testing originality and brand understanding. Another was: “How many personal branding agencies exist today that serve more than 100+ clients?”\u2014hecking research skills and sourcing accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These tasks make it clear who’s thinking and who’s letting AI think for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bhavik Sarkhedi<\/a>
Head of Marketing & People Ops, WeblineIndia<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nUse Follow-Up Questions for Depth<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
HR Head, Bigohtech<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nFocus on Real-World Application<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
International AI and SEO Expert | Founder & President, Boulder SEO Marketing<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nSeek Personal Stories and Insights<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Founder, Unmiss<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nEvaluate AI Integration with Expertise<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Owner and President, Green Lion Search<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nThrow in Nonsense Prompts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Marketing Manager, PSS International Removals<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nDiscuss Recent Project Specifics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Marketing Manager, Weather Solve<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nAsk About Personal Failures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
SEO Consultant & CEO, Digital Media Lab<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nIntroduce Nonexistent or Contradictory Concepts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Co-Founder, Seekario.ai<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nIncorporate Live Problem-Solving Sessions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
CEO, Parachute<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nTest for Strong Opinions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Commercial Marketing Manager, HorseClicks<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\nGive Tasks Requiring ReCReDa<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
Founder & Content Lead, Ohh My Brand<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/images.goprofiles.io\/blog\/content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/25215748\/goprofiles_blog_footer_cta_2x_2x-1.webp\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"