A recruiter sent an enthusiastic follow-up email to a candidate named Jennifer discussing how impressed the team was with "Marcus's presentation skills" and "Marcus's thoughtful questions about the role" and how excited they were to move "Marcus" to the next interview round. Jennifer, who is not named Marcus and would very much like credit for her own interview performance, replied with a screenshot and "I think you might have me confused with someone else?"

The recruiter had apparently started typing "Thanks for interviewing" and let AI-powered email autocomplete do the rest. It did the rest using content from a different candidate's email. For three paragraphs.

When Autocomplete Gets Too Helpful

Reports from workplace forums indicate the recruiter was using an email platform with AI-powered autocomplete that suggests full sentences based on previous emails. Useful in theory—you type a few words and the AI suggests logical completions based on your email history and context.

In practice, the AI apparently pulled content from an email the recruiter had sent to Marcus (an actual candidate who interviewed for a different role) and confidently suggested it for Jennifer's email. The recruiter, operating on autopilot after back-to-back interviews, apparently tab-tab-tabbed through the suggestions without reading them.

According to user discussions, the email opened fine: "Hi Jennifer, thank you for taking the time to interview with us yesterday." Standard and correct. Then autocomplete kicked in with "The team was particularly impressed with Marcus's presentation on the marketing strategy challenge."

Jennifer had given a presentation on data analysis methodology. She is not Marcus. She did not present on marketing strategy. The autocomplete did not care about these details.

The Email Keeps Going

The second paragraph allegedly continued: "Marcus brought thoughtful questions about team structure and showed deep knowledge of our industry challenges. Marcus's experience with B2B SaaS companies really stood out to the hiring panel."

Jennifer works in healthcare tech. She asked questions about remote work policy and professional development opportunities. She has never worked in B2B SaaS. Marcus is living rent-free in her inbox and she's very confused about it.

The third paragraph reportedly wrapped up with: "We'd love to invite Marcus to the next round of interviews. Is Marcus available next Tuesday or Wednesday for a 90-minute panel discussion?"

Jennifer was absolutely available and increasingly wondering if she should even bother responding given that the company clearly couldn't tell their candidates apart. She apparently sat with the email for 20 minutes deciding between "professional correction" and "chaotic response."

Jennifer's Perfect Reply

Reports indicate Jennifer chose chaos. Her response allegedly read: "Hi! I appreciate the interest in moving Marcus forward. However, I should clarify that I am Jennifer, not Marcus. I interviewed yesterday and gave a presentation on data analysis, not marketing strategy. I have never worked in B2B SaaS. I'm beginning to suspect Marcus had a really great interview and you've confused us, or Marcus has stolen my identity and is interviewing places under my name. Either way, I'm concerned."

She reportedly included a screenshot of the email with Marcus's name highlighted in yellow in all three paragraphs, with arrows pointing to it and the caption "Not me!"

The recruiter allegedly saw the email, experienced what can only be described as "pure horror," and immediately called Jennifer to apologize profusely. According to workplace forum discussions, the recruiter opened with "I am so, so sorry—I've been using AI email autocomplete and clearly wasn't paying attention to what it was suggesting."

Jennifer apparently replied, "So you sent me a three-paragraph email about how great Marcus is... because your email AI likes Marcus better than me?" The recruiter, by all accounts, died internally.

The Aftermath

Reports suggest the recruiter sent a proper follow-up email—manually written, triple-checked—explaining that Jennifer had actually impressed the team with her data analysis presentation, her thoughtful questions about professional development, and her healthcare tech background. They wanted to move her, Jennifer, not Marcus, to the next interview round.

Jennifer reportedly appreciated the apology and the comedy of the situation. She allegedly told the recruiter, "I'm choosing to believe Marcus is a very impressive candidate and you're just overwhelmed, not that you can't be bothered to read emails before sending them." Diplomat of the year.

According to user discussions, Jennifer did proceed to the next interview round and apparently opened her panel interview with "Hi everyone, I'm Jennifer. Not Marcus. Just wanted to clarify that upfront." The hiring team reportedly loved it, having already heard about the email disaster. Nothing breaks the ice like shared embarrassment.

The recruiter allegedly disabled email autocomplete immediately after this incident and now writes every email manually like it's 2015. They also reportedly added Jennifer's Marcus email to the company's "recruiting fails" file with the annotation "DO NOT LET AI WRITE YOUR EMAILS UNSUPERVISED."

Marcus, Meanwhile, Is Fine

Reports indicate Marcus exists, interviewed well for a different role, and has no idea he briefly became a character in Jennifer's interview process. The recruiter apparently did send Marcus a real follow-up email—carefully reviewed for accuracy—and Marcus advanced in his actual interview process.

One can only imagine the recruiter's stress level while writing Marcus's email: "Is this actually about Marcus? Did I check? Did I check twice? Is Jennifer going to jump out from behind a corner asking why I called Marcus 'Jennifer'?"

According to workplace forums, someone suggested the company should hire both Jennifer and Marcus just to resolve the cosmic confusion this incident created. The universe clearly wants them both employed there. It's destiny. The recruiter reportedly replied "Please stop, I'm still recovering."

The Broader Implications

This incident apparently sparked a team-wide conversation about AI email tools and when they're helpful versus dangerous. One recruiter allegedly said "I've been using autocomplete for months and now I'm terrified about what I might have sent without noticing."

The recruiting team apparently did an audit of recent emails and found several near-misses where autocomplete had suggested wrong names, wrong companies, or wrong role details that recruiters had caught before sending. And probably several they didn't catch.

HR allegedly sent guidance on email AI tools reminding everyone that "autocomplete suggestions are based on patterns and previous emails, not actual accuracy for the current recipient" and "please actually read your emails before sending them, this should not require a policy."

The company's internal Slack allegedly featured several days of recruiters sharing their own autocomplete horror stories. One person admitted to nearly sending a rejection email that opened "Congratulations!" because autocomplete pulled from an offer letter. Another almost sent an offer letter with a previous candidate's salary information.

The Lesson That Never Seems to Stick

AI tools are great at predicting what you might want to say based on patterns. They are terrible at knowing what you should say to this specific person right now. Autocomplete doesn't know Jennifer from Marcus. It doesn't care that you're talking to different candidates about different roles. It just knows "recruiter follow-up email" and suggests content that matches that pattern.

The solution is devastatingly simple: read your emails before sending them. All the way through. Every word. Especially when AI is writing half of it for you. If this seems obvious and tedious, congratulations, you understand the trade-off of using AI tools. They save time on writing but require time for review.

Is it worth it? Depends on whether you'd rather spend 30 seconds writing an email manually or 2 minutes apologizing for calling someone by the wrong name for three paragraphs while explaining that your email robot doesn't know who they are.

Jennifer and Marcus both allegedly got job offers, by the way. Jennifer accepted. Marcus took another offer. The recruiter apparently sent Jennifer a welcome email that was manually written, checked by two other people, and began "Hi Jennifer (I triple-checked this)." Jennifer reportedly replied "I'm honored to be Jennifer today."

And thus the legend of Marcus-who-wasn't-Marcus lives on in that company's recruiting lore, a cautionary tale about letting AI write your emails while you're thinking about lunch.

Read your emails, people. Autocomplete is not your friend. It's a pattern-matching algorithm that would absolutely call your CEO "dude" if it found that pattern in your email history. Give it the respect it deserves, which is constant suspicious monitoring.