A mid-size Japanese game development company started requiring artist job applicants to draw live during interviews after discovering multiple new hires had used generative AI to create their portfolios but lacked actual artistic skills once employed. An anonymous chief graphic designer known as “B” told Daily Shincho in December 2025 that AI fraud in job applications has become so frequent that their studio and several others now conduct on-the-spot drawing tests to verify candidates’ abilities. The process is “a huge hassle for recruiters” and feels like going backwards, but it’s necessary because some hired artists couldn’t make significant contributions to teams after being hired based on AI-generated portfolio work. Despite implementing strict anti-AI screening, B reports that upper management is simultaneously considering hiring generative AI experts or adopting AI tools internally, creating an uncomfortable paradox where the company fights AI fraud while potentially embracing the same technology that caused the hiring crisis.
The AI Fraud Problem
According to the Automaton Media interview with designer B, the explosion of generative AI tools like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DALL-E has created a wave of fraudulent job applications in Japan’s game industry. Applicants submit portfolios containing impressive character designs, environments, and concept art that appear professionally crafted. Recruiters review these portfolios, see strong technical execution and creative vision, and hire the candidates based on demonstrated ability.
The problem emerges after hiring. Once these new employees start working on actual game projects, they struggle to produce art at the level their portfolios suggested. They can’t iterate on designs effectively, struggle with specific art direction requests, take significantly longer than expected to complete tasks, and produce work that doesn’t match the quality or style shown in their application materials. Eventually, it becomes clear that their portfolio was mostly or entirely AI-generated, and they lack the foundational skills needed to function as professional game artists.
This isn’t just theoretical – B states that their company actually hired multiple people who turned out to be guilty of AI fraud. These weren’t candidates who got filtered out during interviews. These were people who made it through the entire hiring process, received job offers, started working, and only revealed their lack of genuine skills weeks or months into employment. The cost of these bad hires is enormous – wasted salary, lost productivity, disrupted project timelines, and team morale damage when colleagues realize they’re carrying dead weight.
The Live Drawing Solution
To combat this problem, B’s company now requires art applicants to draw something live during interviews. The specific parameters aren’t detailed, but this likely involves giving candidates a simple prompt – “draw a fantasy knight character” or “sketch this environment from a different angle” – and having them complete it within 30-60 minutes while recruiters watch.
This approach immediately reveals whether applicants possess actual artistic ability. Can they confidently put pencil to paper and produce recognizable forms? Do they understand basic anatomy, perspective, composition, and lighting? Can they iterate based on feedback? These fundamental skills are impossible to fake in real-time. An applicant whose portfolio is AI-generated but who lacks genuine drawing ability will be exposed immediately.
The Reddit thread discussing this news shows widespread support for the practice. One highly upvoted comment states: “Standard practice for software companies is to have programming candidates code in front of them. This is just the same thing for artists.” Another notes: “This is really common. They often do live coding tests for the same reason, asking you to talk through your process as you’re working through problems.”
Why This Feels Like Going Backwards
B describes the live drawing requirement as “a huge hassle for recruiters” and says “it feels like we’re going backwards.” This frustration makes sense – for decades, portfolio review was sufficient for hiring artists. You looked at their work, assessed quality and style, checked references, and made hiring decisions. The process was relatively quick and scalable.
Now, every art candidate requires an extended in-person interview with dedicated time for drawing demonstrations. This is time-consuming for both candidates and recruiters. It limits the number of applicants you can process. It requires physical space and materials. And it fundamentally changes the hiring dynamic – instead of evaluating finished work representing the candidate’s best efforts, you’re assessing rough sketches created under pressure in artificial conditions. A talented artist might underperform during a timed live test due to interview nerves, while someone with excellent technical skills but weak creative vision might do fine on simple drawing prompts but struggle with actual game art production.
Despite these limitations, the alternative – continuing to hire AI fraudsters who can’t contribute once employed – is worse. The live drawing test isn’t perfect, but it’s a necessary filter in an environment where portfolios can no longer be trusted.
Other Companies Doing the Same
B mentions hearing that “several other companies are doing the same,” suggesting this isn’t an isolated response but an emerging industry-wide trend in Japan’s game development sector. This makes sense – if AI fraud is widespread enough to affect one mid-size studio, it’s affecting many others. Studios talk to each other, recruiters share information at industry events, and effective hiring practices spread quickly.
The gaming industry has always relied heavily on hiring practices borrowed from adjacent fields. Programmers have faced live coding tests for decades. Designers complete take-home assignments demonstrating their problem-solving abilities. Artists submitting portfolios was the norm because it was reliable – until AI made portfolios unreliable. Now the industry is adapting by importing live demonstration practices from other technical fields.
The Uncomfortable Paradox
Here’s where the situation becomes deeply ironic. B reveals that despite implementing strict anti-AI measures in hiring, upper management at their company is “beginning to hear talks” about hiring generative AI experts or using AI tools themselves for production. This creates a bizarre contradiction – the studio fights AI fraud in hiring while simultaneously considering adopting the same technology that created the fraud problem.
B frames this as a threat to their position: “While ‘B’s’ integral role as an illustrator and character designer allows them a voice in the matter, they feel like their position within the company is gradually weakening.” Translation: management sees AI as a potential cost-saving measure that could reduce or eliminate the need for human artists. B’s ability to push back against AI adoption depends on their seniority and importance to current projects, but that protection won’t last forever.
This tension reflects broader anxiety throughout the creative industries. Artists see AI tools as an existential threat to their livelihoods. Management sees AI as a potential efficiency gain that reduces labor costs. The fact that AI fraud is causing hiring problems doesn’t change the economic calculus for executives who care more about budgets than craft. If anything, the hiring difficulties caused by AI might accelerate adoption – “we can’t find reliable human artists anymore, so let’s just use AI instead.”
Comparison to Programming Interviews
The Reddit discussion extensively compared live drawing tests to live coding interviews, which have been standard practice in software development for years. One commenter explained their company’s approach: “We give straightforward take-home assignments for entry-level Software Development positions. After candidates complete these tasks, we conduct a live discussion where they explain their implementation. We also inquire about how they would handle specific modifications.”
This hybrid approach – take-home work plus live explanation – might be ideal for art hiring as well. Give candidates a take-home assignment (knowing it might be AI-assisted), then during the interview, ask them to explain their process, make modifications to the work, or draw variations on the designs. This balances respect for candidates’ time with verification of genuine skills.
Another commenter noted: “It’s amusing to see multiple candidates arrive at similar solutions using the same obscure techniques. We also notice a trend of excessive comments in the code, which often indicates AI assistance.” Artists reviewing portfolios are probably noticing similar patterns – multiple applicants submitting work with identical lighting styles, similar composition choices, or the telltale “AI look” that experienced eyes can identify.
The Broader Impact on Hiring
This situation doesn’t just affect artists – it’s changing how Japanese game companies approach all creative hiring. If portfolios can’t be trusted, what else might be fraudulent? Did the writer actually write those sample scripts, or did ChatGPT? Did the designer create those game systems, or did they describe their ideas to an AI and present the output as original work?
B’s company requiring in-person drawing tests is part of a larger shift toward more rigorous verification at all stages of hiring. One Reddit commenter mentioned their workplace previously conducted interviews entirely online but now requires “at least one in-person interview as part of the process.” Remote work made hiring more accessible, but it also made fraud easier. Companies are pulling back toward in-person verification because trust has eroded.
FAQs
Why are Japanese game companies making artists draw live?
To detect AI fraud. Multiple applicants were hired based on AI-generated portfolios but couldn’t actually create art once employed. Live drawing tests verify candidates possess genuine artistic skills.
What happens during a live drawing test?
Applicants receive a prompt and must draw something in front of recruiters within a limited time, typically 30-60 minutes. This immediately reveals whether they have foundational artistic ability that can’t be faked.
Is this common in other industries?
Yes. Software companies have required live coding tests for decades. The practice of verifying skills through real-time demonstration is standard for technical roles across many industries.
Why didn’t recruiters catch AI portfolios before hiring?
Modern generative AI produces high-quality, convincing artwork that looks professionally crafted. Without comparing to real-time demonstrations, it’s difficult to prove a portfolio is AI-generated versus human-created.
Does this happen outside Japan?
Likely yes, though this specific report focuses on Japan’s game industry. AI fraud in hiring is a global problem affecting creative industries worldwide.
Can good artists fail live drawing tests?
Possibly. Interview pressure and time limits create artificial conditions that might cause talented artists to underperform compared to their normal work. The test isn’t perfect but filters out obvious fraud.
What’s the company’s stance on using AI themselves?
Contradictory. They fight AI fraud in hiring while upper management considers adopting AI tools for production, creating tension between artists and executives over the technology’s role.
How long does the live drawing take?
Not specified, but likely 30-60 minutes based on similar testing practices in other creative fields. Long enough to demonstrate competence but short enough to fit in interview schedules.
Will this become industry standard?
Possibly. The report mentions several other Japanese companies implementing similar practices, suggesting it’s becoming common in response to widespread AI fraud.
Conclusion
The requirement for live drawing tests at Japanese game studios represents a direct response to generative AI eroding trust in traditional hiring practices. When portfolios can be convincingly faked using tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, companies have no choice but to verify skills through real-time demonstration, even though it’s time-consuming and feels regressive compared to streamlined portfolio review processes. The fact that multiple bad hires made it through screening only to reveal their lack of genuine ability once employed shows this isn’t paranoia – it’s a real problem affecting production teams and project timelines. The uncomfortable irony is that while fighting AI fraud in hiring, these same companies are considering adopting AI tools that threaten the jobs of the human artists they’re trying to hire correctly. Whether live drawing tests become permanent fixtures or temporary measures until better fraud detection emerges remains unclear. But for now, Japanese game artists seeking employment should expect to prove their skills the old-fashioned way – pencil on paper, with recruiters watching.