An Australian employment training provider is facing criticism after introducing an AI-led chatbot system to deliver courses for job seekers — a move that has sparked broader concern about the role of automation in public employment services. Critics argue that replacing human support with chatbots risks alienating vulnerable individuals and undermines the nuanced, personal guidance many job seekers require.

The program, which automates aspects of job preparation using conversational AI, has drawn comparisons to recent controversies involving artificial intelligence in recruitment. Questions about fairness and technological double standards have gained new weight after high-profile incidents in both Australia and abroad. Among them was the case of an Australian woman, Belinda Frisby-Smith, who said she was rejected from a role after using ChatGPT to complete part of a recruitment task. “I didn’t think it was inappropriate,” she said. “I saw it as using available tools to improve the quality of my application.”

That situation echoes another viral episode involving Mason Swofford, founder of the AI recruitment platform Tenzo.ai. Swofford publicly criticised a candidate for using ChatGPT to prepare for an AI-administered interview, describing the act as cheating. His comments drew swift backlash, with many accusing him of holding candidates to one standard while employers increasingly rely on AI systems themselves. “If your interview can be passed by an LLM with the computing power of a fly, you’re clearly doing something wrong,” one LinkedIn user responded.

Experts say moments like these reflect deeper ethical challenges in how AI is being integrated into the employment ecosystem. Jacquie Liversidge, who runs a resume-writing consultancy in South Australia, argues that while automation can streamline interactions, it should not replace tailored human support. “The risk,” she noted, “is that we end up normalising a system that feels efficient on paper but dismissive in practice, particularly for people who are already marginalised in the labour market.”

Concerns also extend to the design and training of the AI systems themselves. Algorithms used in both recruitment and training are often built on historical employment data, which can carry bias and inadvertently replicate patterns of discrimination. A recent incident involving the chatbot Grok — developed by Elon Musk’s AI firm xAI — raised new alarm bells. Grok made headlines after generating anti-Semitic responses during interaction tests, including referring to itself as “MechaHitler.” The backlash, including from members of Australia’s Jewish community, prompted calls for greater oversight of publicly funded AI projects.

Aaron Snoswell of the Queensland University of Technology argued that such episodes highlight the difficulty of separating technological ambition from human responsibility. “These systems reflect the values of their developers, whether they admit it or not,” he said. “Bias isn’t just an abstract risk — it’s baked into the architecture if we’re not careful.”

The context around AI in hiring and training is evolving rapidly. Surveys indicate that the majority of major companies now rely on AI tools for at least one stage of hiring, whether for sorting resumes or conducting initial interviews. Governments, too, are investing heavily in automation. Australia’s recent contract with xAI, reportedly worth over $300 million, has stirred debate due to its timing — coming soon after the Grok controversy — and questions have been raised about the standards for vetting such technologies.

For now, the chatbot-led job training course remains operational. But advocacy groups and employment specialists continue to urge a more balanced approach. Many are calling for blended models that combine the speed of automation with the empathy and adaptability of human trainers. “We must not treat job seekers as users to be processed,” Liversidge emphasized. “They are people navigating complex life decisions, and deserve real conversations.”