Building realistic AI interviews is WAY harder than I expected
I thought the difficult part would be AI responses.
Turns out the hardest part is making the interaction feel human:
interruptions
pressure
recruiter skepticism
emotional reactions
trust changing during answers
follow-up questions based on weak points
Most interview tools feel like scripted Q&A.
I’m trying to build something that feels closer to:
“a recruiter who has actually read your CV and is judging your answers in real time.”
As a solo founder, I’ve also learned:
launching is not the hard part anymore.
Distribution is.
You can spend months building something technically impressive and still hear complete silence after launch.
Right now I’m focusing on:
improving realism
reducing onboarding friction
talking to users directly
posting consistently instead of waiting for a “perfect launch”
What made your product finally start getting traction?
The strongest part here is the “recruiter who has actually read your CV” framing.
That is much more interesting than another AI interview-practice tool, because it shifts the product from generic Q&A into realistic career judgment: pressure, skepticism, follow-ups, weak-point detection, and trust changing during the conversation.
I’d build the positioning around that. People do not just want to rehearse answers. They want to know how their answers hold up when someone is actively evaluating them.
One thing to be careful with is making the product sound too much like a practice chatbot. If the experience is moving toward realistic interview simulation and professional readiness, the brand should probably feel more serious than a generic AI interview tool.
Beryxa. com would fit that direction well because it feels like a professional decision-training platform rather than a scripted mock interview app. The product sounds like it is selling confidence under pressure, so the name needs to carry trust before users even start the first session.