A woman has sparked a heated debate online after revealing she lost out on a job, and potentially $20,000 in annual income, because she used ChatGPT during the application process.
Alexandra Frisby-Smith, a 30-year-old creative and workflow consultant from Australia, recently applied for a part-time position. As part of the selection process, she was asked to complete an interview, a written questionnaire, and a timed practical task.
The task required applicants to review and streamline a list of daily duties the employer typically handled, all within 30 minutes.
Frisby-Smith approached the assignment by first brainstorming her ideas, then using ChatGPT to help organize and polish her thoughts into a clear and structured response.
“Once I worked out an overview, I popped that into ChatGPT and it created a cohesive and beautiful way of representing my thoughts,” she told News.com.au. “The most efficient way was to brainstorm everything and then put it into ChatGPT, that can make it cohesive and easy to digest.”
She believed her method demonstrated creativity and efficiency. But shortly after submitting the task, she received a rejection email. The reason? Her “heavy use of ChatGPT.”
Frisby-Smith was shocked. The part-time role would have added approximately $20,000 to her yearly income.
“I’m not trying to hide the fact that I use it,” she said. “Everyone has their different views, and I can see why people dislike it because it takes the humanness out of writing. But it was still my ideas.”
After sharing her story on TikTok under her handle @claritywithalex, reactions quickly poured in, some in support, others critical.
One commenter wrote, “Employers want to see your skills, not what AI can do for you.”
Another added, “ChatGPT is helpful, but anything you submit should still be in your own words.”
Recruitment expert Roxanne Calder weighed in, noting that AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly common in professional settings, especially for resume creation and planning. But she issued a word of caution.
“These tools are really great, and everyone should learn how to use them,” she said. “But if you don’t integrate your own thoughts and just copy-paste, then the work isn’t truly yours.”
Frisby-Smith stands by her decision, insisting she used the tool to enhance her work, not replace it.
“Why are you shaming me?” she asked. “When are we going to stop shaming people who use it?”
As AI becomes more integrated into daily work life, this story underscores a larger conversation: where do we draw the line between using tech as a tool and relying on it too much, especially when jobs and paychecks are on the line?
