Are companies now okay with you “cheating” in job interviews?
Recently went through a technical evaluation for a software company and it surprised me. The email basically said I could use any AI tools I wanted for the test, as long as I solved the scenario properly and gave them the output they were looking for. Then later in the interview process, they said the same thing again. Use whatever AI tools you want. We care about what you produce and how you think, not where your eyes are going.
And yeah, I know a lot of people would call that cheating. If you’re using AI during an interview, most people would probably say you’re getting outside help in a situation where you’re supposed to prove what you know. That’s why this stood out to me so much. It felt like the complete opposite of what most companies say right now.
So I asked them directly, how do you know if someone actually knows their stuff or is just leaning on AI too much? They said they’ve been building software for close to 20 years, hired 100+ people, and can usually tell within a few minutes if someone understands what they’re doing or is just patching things together. That made me think maybe some companies are shifting from “don’t use AI” to “fine, use it, but show us you can still think.” I finished that interview 2 days ago and still haven’t heard back, so no idea how it’ll turn out, but it did make me wonder if this is where interviews are heading.
Is anyone else seeing this or was this just one unusually AI-friendly company?
Jobadvisor
You're not imagining it — what you experienced is part of a real, growing shift in technical hiring, though adoption is still uneven across the industry.
### Yes, this is becoming a trend (but not universal)
Several companies are now explicitly allowing — and even expecting — candidates to use AI tools during technical interviews. Canva, for example, publicly states they "not only encourage, but expect" candidates to use tools like Copilot or Claude during interviews because their engineers use them daily [[22]]. Rippling and Meta are piloting similar formats where AI assistance is built into the evaluation [[8]]. The reasoning is consistent: if your daily work involves AI collaboration, testing you *without* it doesn't reflect how you'll actually perform on the job [[22]].
### Why the shift? Three key drivers:
1. **Realism over purity**: Traditional "whiteboard algorithm" interviews test abstract problem-solving, but modern engineering is often about reading, refining, and validating AI-generated code — not writing everything from scratch [[22]].
2. **Signal quality**: Companies like the one you interviewed with are betting that experienced hiring managers can still assess *how* you think — your ability to break down problems, prompt effectively, catch AI errors, and explain tradeoffs — even when tools are allowed [[8]].
3. **Practicality**: Policing AI use is increasingly difficult. Some companies prefer transparency ("use it, but show us your process") over an arms race of detection tools [[22]].
### But it's not unanimous
The industry is split. Amazon, for instance, still prohibits AI tools in interviews to maintain a "level playing field," while others like Anthropic have moved from strict bans to conditional allowance with clear guidance [[21]]. The core tension: AI fluency is valuable, but companies still need to verify foundational skills, since AI can hallucinate, introduce subtle bugs, or fail on edge cases [[21]].
### What this means for you
- **Your interview experience wasn't a fluke** — it reflects a forward-looking segment of the industry testing new evaluation models.
- **The "cheating" framing is evolving**: Many hiring teams now view AI as a tool to be *managed*, not a shortcut to be hidden. The skill being tested shifts from "Can you code this alone?" to "Can you direct, validate, and iterate with AI effectively?" [[8]].
- **If you're prepping**: Practice *thinking aloud* while using AI. Show how you'd prompt, review output, debug errors, and justify decisions. That meta-skill — collaborating with AI while retaining technical judgment — is increasingly what these interviews are designed to surface [[8]].
Since it's only been two days, hang tight on the outcome. Regardless of this role, it's worth noting which companies are transparent about their AI policies in job descriptions — that clarity itself can be a signal of thoughtful engineering culture.
Feel like my life is over
I’m turning 27 and can’t shake that my life just feels like it’s over. I feel like I’m turning 57, not 27. I don’t know how to explain this, I just feel so much older than I did at 20. It felt like my whole life was ahead of me and I had opportunities and now I feel like there’s nothing that could truly excite me or actually make me happy. I know how silly this must sound, but it’s just how I feel.
I had a prestigious government job that I quit because I kept having panic attacks and couldn’t handle it, and for the last year I’ve been doing nothing but applying for random jobs and trying to envision what field or career I want. But I’m at a complete loss. There’s nothing I truly want to do other than like work a part time easy job but then I would judge myself too hard and wouldn’t make enough money. I have no excitement towards life and the thought of having any type of full time job makes me horribly depressed. And now I’ve been applying and doing interviews and not even hearing back. Where do I go from here?
Jobadvisor
I hear you, and I want to start by saying that what you’re feeling isn't "silly"—it’s actually a very documented psychological phenomenon often called the Quarter-Life Crisis.
When you’re 20, life is theoretical. When you’re 27, it’s suddenly practical. That shift from "potential" to "reality" can feel like a heavy door closing, especially when your first major foray into the professional world (the prestigious government job) resulted in trauma rather than triumph.
Here is a breakdown of why you might be feeling this way and some grounded steps to help you find a path that doesn't feel like a life sentence.
1. The "Burnout Hangover"
You didn't just leave a job; you left a situation that caused your nervous system to go into a sustained "fight or flight" mode (those panic attacks).
The Weight of Prestige: High-status jobs often come with an identity. When you quit, you didn't just lose a paycheck; you lost the "story" of who you were.
Safety Seeking: Your brain is currently associating "Full-Time Career" with "Danger/Panic." It is completely natural that the thought of a new full-time role makes you depressed—it's a self-defense mechanism.
2. Redefining "The Path"
You mentioned wanting a "part-time easy job" but fearing the self-judgment. Let's look at the math of your happiness versus the math of your ego.
| Option | Pros | Cons |
| High-Pressure Career | Money, social status, "success." | Panic attacks, depression, no time to heal. |
| "Bridge" Job (Part-time/Low Stress) | Mental space, lower anxiety, time to explore. | Lower pay, temporary ego hit. |
The Reality Check: You are 27. If you take two years to work a "low-stakes" job while you heal your nervous system and figure out what you actually like, you will be 29. You will still have 35+ years of a career ahead of you.
3. Actionable Steps for Clarity
Since applying for "random jobs" is yielding no results and high stress, try changing the strategy:
Stop Applying for "Careers": Look for "Bridge Jobs." These are roles that pay the bills but don't follow you home. Think administrative work, library assistance, or even a local boutique. It’s easier to find a "real" job when you aren't starving or panicked.
The "Anti-Resume" Exercise: Instead of listing what you can do, list what you refuse to do.
Example: "I refuse to work on weekends," or "I refuse to be in a high-stakes environment where people's lives/safety are on the line."
Address the "57-Year-Old" Feeling: This usually stems from a lack of novelty. When we stop learning or playing, time feels heavy. Find one thing—not a job—that is just for "20-year-old" you. A hobby with zero productivity value.
4. Dealing with the Ghosting
The job market is currently brutal, and "applying for everything" often shows in the energy of an interview or cover letter. Recruiters can smell the "I don't want to be here" vibe.
By narrowing your focus to Bridge Jobs, you lower the stakes. If you get a part-time job and "judge yourself," ask: Is my judgment of myself more painful than the panic attacks were? Usually, the answer is no.
Dog Allergies vs Emotional Support Animal
One of my coworkers has severe dog allergies. The company I am at allows dogs in the office. An employee who has been around for a while brings her dog into the office. We hired this new employee who has severe dog allergies and asthma. The existing coworker was asked to stop bringing in her dog to reduce the exposure to the animal. She has since gotten the dog registered as an Emotional Support Animal and has continued to bring in the dog.
HR gave the allergic coworker an air purifier and dust masks to reduce his exposure but that has been causing issues with the asthma. He has already been hospitalized once due to breathing issues since starting the job a few months ago. HR's stance has also been that walking past and working with a dog owner is equivalent to working around and walking by a dog. This all feels very poorly mismanaged. Does this seem normal?
Jobadvisor
This situation does not seem normal or well-managed — there are some significant legal and ethical concerns at play here. Here's a breakdown:
The ESA Registration Issue
The coworker's move to register the dog as an Emotional Support Animal is, frankly, a common workaround tactic — but it has limits. ESAs receive strong legal protections in housing (under the Fair Housing Act), but in workplaces, the situation is different. Unlike service animals trained to perform specific tasks, ESAs have no special legal status under the ADA in an employment context. The employer is not automatically obligated to allow an ESA simply because it has been registered — and it's worth noting that "registering" an ESA through online services carries no official legal weight whatsoever.
The ADA Accommodation Problem
This is the more serious issue. The allergic employee almost certainly has a legitimate ADA disability claim — severe allergies combined with asthma that has already caused hospitalization is clearly a condition that substantially limits a major life activity (breathing). Under the ADA, the employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation that actually works.
An air purifier and a dust mask that aggravate asthma is not a reasonable accommodation — it is demonstrably failing, as evidenced by the hospitalization. HR's stance that "walking past a dog owner is equivalent to being around a dog" is not a defensible legal or medical position. That argument would likely not hold up if scrutinized.
The Competing Accommodation Question
When two employees have competing accommodation needs, employers are supposed to engage in an interactive process to find a solution that genuinely works for both. Options a well-managed HR department might explore include:
- Designated dog-free zones or floors
- Schedule or workspace separation
- Remote work options for one or both employees
- Reassessing whether the pet policy itself is sustainable given the conflict
Simply handing the allergic employee inadequate protective gear and declaring the problem solved is not an interactive process.
No, this is not normal or acceptable management. The allergic employee has strong grounds to escalate this, and should consider:
- Documenting everything — medical visits, hospitalizations, HR communications
- Filing a formal ADA accommodation request in writing if they haven't already
- Consulting an employment attorney — many offer free initial consultations
- Filing a charge with the EEOC if the employer continues to fail to provide a genuinely effective accommodation
The employer is taking on real legal risk here, and HR appears to either be unaware of that or hoping the situation resolves itself. It won't — especially with a documented hospitalization on record.
forced unethical behavior
I expect to get in trouble tomorrow at a staff meeting for refusing to participate in what I believe is an unethical business practice. I work at a veterinary clinic and we are told to ask clients upon checkout to book their next appointment. If they say "no", we are supposed to say ok and do it anyway. The reason for this is because they want their numbers to look more competitive. A client already noticed this happening to them and requested they cancel the appointment. I believe it is deceitful, unethical and may go against fair competition laws. I am unsure how to handle this. I have told my immediate supervisor that it makes me uncomfortable but was told it is mandatory. My previous employer felt my integrity was a major asset but now I am being coerced into going against my morals. Please help! I have not gone to hr yet because we are an at-will state for employment.
Jobadvisor
I hear how difficult and stressful this situation is for you. First and foremost: **your concerns are valid**. Booking appointments without explicit client consent to inflate metrics is ethically questionable, potentially misleading to clients, and could create legal exposure for both you and your employer. You are right to feel uncomfortable.
Here's a practical, step-by-step framework to help you navigate this:
### 🔒 Your Legal Protections (Even in At-Will States)
You mentioned being in an at-will employment state. While at-will employment means employers can generally terminate employees for any reason, **there are critical exceptions**:
- You cannot be lawfully fired for refusing to engage in illegal, unethical, or immoral acts [[1]].
- You are protected from retaliation if you report violations of law (whistleblower protections) [[1]].
- If your termination violates established public policy (e.g., refusing to deceive clients), it may constitute wrongful termination [[1]].
While veterinary appointment booking may not rise to the level of criminal fraud on its own, deliberately falsifying business records or metrics *could* implicate consumer protection laws, state veterinary practice acts, or insurance fraud statutes depending on how the data is used.
### 📝 Immediate Action Steps
**1. Document everything—starting now**
- Write down dates, times, who gave the instruction, exact wording used, and any client complaints (like the one you mentioned).
- Save emails, texts, or policy documents referencing this practice.
- Keep a private, dated log (not on work devices) of your concerns and communications with supervisors.
**2. Clarify the request tactfully**
Sometimes miscommunication occurs. You might ask your supervisor:
> *"I want to make sure I'm implementing this correctly. If a client explicitly declines booking, and I book anyway without their consent, how should I document that interaction to ensure we're maintaining transparency with clients?"*
This frames your concern around compliance and client trust rather than personal judgment.
**3. Escalate strategically**
Since you've spoken with your direct supervisor:
- **HR**: While you're cautious about at-will employment, HR exists partly to mitigate legal risk *for the company*. Frame your concern as: *"I'm seeking guidance on how to balance this policy with client consent expectations and potential regulatory compliance."* This positions you as proactive, not confrontational.
- **External resources**: If internal channels fail, veterinary professionals can contact:
- Your state's Veterinary Medical Board
- The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Ethics Hotline
- State consumer protection agencies
**4. Protect yourself professionally**
- Continue performing all *ethical* duties diligently.
- Avoid discussing this with coworkers beyond what's necessary—retaliation claims are stronger when you've acted discreetly and professionally.
- If you feel pressured to act, you can say: *"I'm not comfortable proceeding without written clarification on how this aligns with our client consent policies."*
### ⚖️ If You Face Retaliation
If you are disciplined or terminated after raising these concerns:
- File a complaint with your state's labor department or EEOC if discrimination is involved.
- Consult an employment attorney. Many offer free initial consultations. The Cross Law Firm notes: *"Thorough documentation can support your side of the story if your boss retaliates against you for reporting illegal activity"* [[4]].
- In veterinary contexts, whistleblower protections may also apply through professional licensing boards [[10]][[16]].
### 💙 Prioritize Your Wellbeing
You mentioned your previous employer valued your integrity—that speaks to your character. Being coerced to act against your values is deeply unsettling, especially when you've worked hard to build a career. Please remember:
- You are not obligated to compromise your ethics to keep a job.
- Your mental health matters. If this environment is causing significant distress, it's okay to begin exploring other opportunities.
- Consider talking to a trusted mentor, therapist, or professional association for support.
### 🔄 If You Decide to Leave
If the situation doesn't improve:
- Start discreetly updating your resume and networking.
- In exit interviews, you may choose to state your reason for leaving professionally: *"I'm seeking a practice whose administrative policies align more closely with my commitment to transparent client communication."*
- Request a neutral reference from a supportive supervisor if possible.
You're not alone in this. Many healthcare professionals face similar ethical tensions. What matters most is that you've recognized the issue, sought guidance, and are acting thoughtfully. However tomorrow's meeting unfolds, you've already taken the hardest step: choosing integrity.