Imagine that two people apply for the same job. A human interviewer may feel tired, like one person’s smile, or prefer someone with a similar background. An AI interviewer does not get tired and can ask every applicant the same questions. It can also use the same scoring rules each time. In this way, AI may be more consistent than a human.

However, consistency does not always mean fairness. AI systems learn from data. If a company’s past hiring decisions were unfair, the AI may learn the same pattern. For example, it might give lower scores to groups that were not often hired in the past. British government guidance also warns that tools analyzing faces, speech, or voices may be less accurate for some groups. (gov.uk)

AI interviews may create special problems for people with disabilities. A system might misunderstand unusual speech, limited eye movement, or a different way of communicating. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that AI tools can wrongly screen out people who are able to do the job. Employers may need to offer another interview method or other support. (eeoc.gov)

Governments are beginning to control these systems. In New York City, certain automated hiring tools must receive a yearly bias audit, and applicants must be told about their use. (nyc.gov) In the European Union, AI emotion recognition in workplaces has been prohibited since February 2025, except for limited medical or safety purposes. Many other hiring systems are treated as high-risk. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)

So, can an AI interviewer be fairer than a human? Yes, but not automatically. Companies must use job-related questions, test the system regularly, explain how it works, and allow human review. AI can reduce some human bias, but it can also repeat old unfairness on a larger scale. The fairest choice may be a careful partnership: AI provides consistent information, while responsible humans make the final decision.