Cluely AI: The Controversial Startup Redefining “Cheating” with $5.3M in Funding

n the fast-evolving world of artificial intelligence, few startups have sparked as much debate as Cluely AI.

Founded by 21-year-old Columbia University dropouts Chungin “Roy” Lee and Neel Shanmugam, Cluely has raised $5.3 million in seed funding from Abstract Ventures and Susa Ventures to develop an AI tool that promises to “cheat on everything.”

From job interviews to exams and sales calls, Cluely’s technology is both revolutionary and polarizing. Here’s what you need to know about this San Francisco-based startup and why it’s making headlines.

What Is Cluely AI?

Cluely AI, originally known as Interview Coder, is a desktop assistant that operates through an undetectable in-browser window. The tool uses advanced AI to provide real-time answers and suggestions during high-stakes situations like:

Job interviews (especially technical coding interviews)

Online exams

Sales calls and virtual meetings

Negotiations

Unlike traditional AI tools, Cluely’s interface is designed to remain invisible during screen-sharing, making it appealing to users seeking an edge in competitive environments.

According to the startup’s CEO, Roy Lee, Cluely has already surpassed $3 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR), signaling strong market demand despite its controversial mission.

The Manifesto: Redefining “Cheating”

Cluely’s website boldly declares, “We want to cheat on everything.” The startup compares its technology to once-controversial tools like calculators, spellcheck, and Google, which were initially criticized as “cheating” but later became indispensable.

Their manifesto argues that AI is the next step in this evolution, stating:

“Why memorize facts, write code, or research anything when a model can do it in seconds? The best communicator, the best analyst, the best problem-solver is now the one who knows how to ask the right question.”

This philosophy has fueled both admiration and backlash, with critics warning that Cluely could undermine trust in education and hiring processes.

The Origins of Cluely: From Columbia Suspension to Silicon Valley

Cluely’s story began at Columbia University, where co-founders Roy Lee and Neel Shanmugam developed Interview Coder to bypass LeetCode, a platform for coding questions widely used in tech interviews.

The duo viewed LeetCode as outdated and a barrier to genuine talent assessment—a sentiment shared by some in the software engineering community.

Their plan? Build a tool, use it to secure job offers from top tech companies, and leverage the “shock factor” for viral marketing. Lee claims he used Interview Coder to land internships at Meta, TikTok, Capital One, and Amazon.

However, when he posted a video showcasing the tool’s use during the Amazon hiring process, an Amazon executive reportedly contacted Columbia, leading to Lee’s suspension and eventual expulsion. Shanmugam faced similar disciplinary action, and both dropped out to focus on Cluely full-time.

Lee’s decision to leak Columbia’s disciplinary letter on X turned Cluely into an overnight sensation. The viral thread not only protected Lee from being “buried” by the university but also attracted investors and users.

Posts on X highlight Cluely’s capabilities beyond coding interviews, including assistance in sales calls, customer support, and remote exams, positioning it as a versatile (if controversial) AI tool.

‍

The Launch Video: A “Black Mirror” Moment

To announce Cluely’s rebrand from Interview Coder, Lee released a high-budget launch video that stirred significant controversy. In it, he uses Cluely’s AI to lie about his age and art knowledge during a date at a fancy restaurant.

While some praised the video’s slick production and bold marketing, others likened it to a dystopian episode of Black Mirror, criticizing it for promoting dishonesty in personal interactions. One X user remarked, “Cluely shows us the future of lying,” encapsulating the ethical concerns surrounding the tool.

Why Cluely Is Controversial

Cluely’s rise has ignited a heated debate about AI ethics, academic integrity, and the future of work. Here are the key points of contention:

Supporters’ Perspective

Innovation Over Tradition: Cluely’s founders argue that tools like LeetCode and traditional exams fail to measure real-world skills. They see AI as a natural evolution, empowering users to focus on creativity and problem-solving rather than rote memorization.

Market Validation: With $5.3 million in funding and $3 million in ARR, Cluely has clear support from investors and users who see value in its technology.

Historical Precedent: By comparing Cluely to calculators and spellcheck, supporters claim it’s only a matter of time before such tools are normalized.

Critics’ Concerns

Erosion of Trust: Critics, including AI educator Christ First, argue that Cluely promotes deception, potentially undermining merit-based systems in education and hiring.

Legal Risks: Using Cluely during video calls involves recording and processing data, which may violate privacy laws or company policies requiring consent.

Ethical Implications: Startup mentor Dave Craige questioned the morality of building a business around cheating, asking, “Do you not have any ethics?”

Amazon, for instance, emphasized that candidates must agree not to use unauthorized tools during interviews, highlighting the potential consequences for Cluely users.

Cluely’s Place in the AI Startup Landscape

As AI tools become more sophisticated, the line between assistance and deception continues to blur, raising questions about how institutions will adapt.

For now, Cluely is capitalizing on its viral fame and financial backing to expand its capabilities. The startup recently updated Interview Coder for “maximal undetectability,” ensuring it remains a go-to tool for those willing to take the risk.

What’s Next for Cluely AI?

With $5.3 million in funding and a growing user base, Cluely is poised to disrupt how we interact with AI in professional and academic settings. However, its success will depend on navigating ethical criticisms and potential regulatory hurdles.

Will Cluely redefine “cheating” as innovation, or will it face backlash for undermining integrity? Only time will tell.

‍