Artificial intelligence has quietly crept into one of the most human-centred processes of all: hiring. Today, applicants are increasingly turning to AI tools to polish, edit or even fully generate their CVs and cover letters. At the same time, employers are using automated systems to screen, filter and rank those very applications.
The result is a paradox – AI writing for humans, read by AI that’s built to filter humans.
While this may seem efficient on paper, it raises urgent questions about fairness, transparency and whether the hiring process risks becoming a battle of algorithms rather than a meaningful evaluation of skills and potential.
As AI adoption accelerates, the job market is fast becoming a testing ground for how automation reshapes power between workers and employers and whether people are being left behind in a system meant to help them.
The Rise of AI-Generated Applications
For jobseekers, AI tools like ChatGPT, Jasper and even built-in CV assistants on LinkedIn have levelled the playing field. With a few prompts, candidates can create sleek, keyword-optimised CVs and cover letters designed to pass through Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS).
This offers advantages to those who may lack writing skills or industry-specific jargon, giving them a chance to be seen. However, it also introduces a sameness to applications. That is, thousands of near-identical cover letters that risk blurring individuality.
Recruiters are increasingly reporting “AI gloss,” where applications look polished but lack authenticity. Basically, suspiciously professional. For applicants, on the other hand, the challenge becomes standing out in a sea of AI-generated uniformity, especially when recruiters are often using AI themselves to sift through CVs. Ironically, the very tools designed to help them be noticed could make them invisible, raising deeper questions about whether CVs themselves are losing their value in the hiring process.
More from Artificial Intelligence
- AI’s Catch-22: Are Workers Building the AI Tools That’ll Take Their Jobs?
- Fiverr Latest Company To Cut Workforce In Place Of AI
- AI Influencers Find New Success In Six-Figure Lifestyle Niches
- ChatGPT Takes Over the Commons: Data Shows an Increase in MP Speeches Written By AI
- If AI Summarises Everything, Why Will Anyone Read the News?
- How Would A Possible OpenAI Chip Impact The Semiconductor Industry?
- Salesforce Layoffs: What Patterns Are We Seeing In Big Layoffs Tied To Automation?
- The Evolution Of Face Yoga: How AI Moves Wellness Beyond Gimmicks
Employers and AI: Gatekeeping With Blind Spots?
On the employer side, AI-powered Applicant Tracking Systems and recruitment platforms promise efficiency. They can sort hundreds of applications in seconds, highlighting those that match a job description. For busy HR teams, this tool has become indispensable.
However, the problem is, the systems aren’t neutral. Algorithms can replicate biases from historical hiring data, filtering out qualified candidates who don’t fit the “pattern” of past hires. Also, when both sides are using AI, recruiters may find themselves evaluating machine-optimised applications through equally machine-driven filters, creating a loop where human potential is lost to technical optimisation.
Indeed, it’s no surprise that some firms are already questioning whether automated systems are creating false positives and negatives at scale. The risk for businesses is not just missing out on talent but also undermining trust in the fairness of their hiring process and, ultimately, their reputation as an employer.
Our Experts
- Elizabeth Wallace: Chief People and Transformation Officer at emagine
- Amy Walker: Careers Manager at The University of Law
-
Maria Lawless: Founder and Chairwoman at Signature Associates
- Khyati Sundaram: CEO of Applied
- Simon Fabb: CEO, ChiefJobs.com
- Ayesha Ansari: AI Strategy Lead at Harri’s
- Doug Betts: HR Expert and Founder of Sure Betts HR Solutions
- Rebecca Carr: CEO of SmartRecruiters
- Dani Foust: Director of Global Talent Acquisition at Pluralsight
Elizabeth Wallace, Chief People and Transformation Officer at emagine
“AI allows applicants to pull together highly targeted CVs that draw a circle around their most appropriate skills for the job at hand in a matter of minutes, saving them a significant amount of time. For consultants or other freelancers who may be frequently applying for new roles or projects, this saved time is highly valuable.
“But there are risks. This level of targeting CVs to specific jobs using AI can lead to anomalies and masking. For example, by targeting applications so closely, AI can oversell an applicant and also fill in skills gaps that the candidate may, or may not, be aware of. It’s also important for candidates to check that skills highlighted are still appropriate, as AI may pull out experiences from several years ago that, whilst relevant, may no longer be valid.
“For hirers, particularly those dealing with a high volume of roles on a regular basis, AI is a golden tool that can significantly speed up the shortlisting process. However, it is vital not to overuse this technology. Once a shortlist of candidates has been identified, it’s important that these individuals are then carefully considered by the hirer and not whittled down any further using AI. It is also important to continually assess the process and ensure that AI is not showing bias in the candidates it is pulling out.
“There is no way to avoid AI, it is the reality of today’s recruitment world, with the entire process increasingly supported by this technology. Hirers rejecting or penalising candidates based on AI-enhanced CVs risk missing out in the long run. What recruiters need to do is adapt their hiring process to ‘debug’ CVs in a robust shortlisting and interview process. Checking declared qualifications and skills and asking probing questions in the screening process has always been part of the hiring process, but in the AI-powered world, the level of detail required is greater. It’s important to be highly objective and challenge candidates in a way that perhaps was not necessary before.
“For the candidate, being dishonest on CVs is as risky as it ever was. Where the trust between candidate and employer is broken, for example, due to overstating on an AI-enhanced CV, it is hard to win back. Whether the false claims are uncovered before or at interview, or once the recruit has started and performed below expectations, the trust is almost impossible to earn back. Therefore, an important message for prospective candidates at any level is to not over-rely on AI.”
Amy Walker, Careers Manager at The University of Law
“AI in hiring isn’t new. Employers have been using applicant tracking systems for years, but now that candidates are using the same tools, suddenly it’s a topic for debate. Some recruiters even penalise applicants for AI-assisted applications – yet, in many ways, it’s levelling the playing field?
“The truth is, AI isn’t the problem. The problem is how it’s used. Left to do all the work, it churns out bland, generic applications that won’t impress anyone (except for your impeccable grammar). But used smartly, AI can be a real game-changer. It can help candidates identify which skills matter most in a job description or reframe experience in a way that feels relevant. For students or career changers, especially, that’s incredibly valuable.
“Meanwhile, applicants often feel their efforts vanish into a black hole. If employers used AI not just to filter, but to provide application outcomes, the process would feel more human, not less.
“The way forward? Meet in the middle. Let AI speed up the boring bits for both sides, but keep the authentic, human story at the heart of every application.”
Maria Lawless, Founder and Chairwoman at Signature Associates
“AI can tidy up a CV, but if it has not been edited, it is obvious and it does not impress. As a HR director, I am always looking for authenticity, not copy and paste. For recruiters, AI can save time, but it cannot make the hiring decision. A CV is only the starting point. Real experience, conversation, and judgement are what count.
“If employers use AI but punish candidates for it, that is hypocritical. The issue is not using AI, it is how you use it. Candidates who hand in a bland, machine-made CV will not stand out. Those who use AI to refine their own voice show adaptability. That is a skill worth hiring.
Khyati Sundaram, CEO of Applied
“Both job applicants and hiring managers are under pressure in today’s job market. Job seekers are having to send up to fifty applications to land a role, while hiring managers are receiving masses more applications per vacancy. So it’s understandable that both sides are turning to AI to save time, whether that’s to increase their hit rate (job seekers) or identify top talent faster (hiring managers). It’s smart, as long as they’re using it in the right way.
“If job seekers are using AI, it should be to polish applications rather than outsourcing the entire process to it. The latter often leads to generic cover letters and CVs that don’t truly reflect candidates’ skills and strengths, which will backfire in the long run.
“For hiring managers, it’s about using the right AI tools. Garden-variety AI risks filtering out top candidates purely because they don’t fit a narrow mold. Recruiters must ensure that any tools used to rank and score candidates have been trained on ethical datasets to prevent this from happening and ensure AI is a help, not a hindrance, to finding top talent.”
2. Some recruiters and companies are penalising applicants for using AI- is this hypocritical or is it fair?
“If rules around AI use in the hiring process haven’t been made clear, candidates shouldn’t be penalised for using it. If companies have explicitly banned AI, then that’s a different matter.
“Ultimately, it’s up to companies to set the rules around applicants using AI. But banning AI altogether and not testing candidates’ AI skills as part of the hiring process is short-sighted, when hiring for roles where AI is being increasingly used on the job.”
Simon Fabb, CEO, ChiefJobs.com
“I think AI is now part of both sides of the hiring table. Applicants lean on it to polish CVs, while HR teams use it to scan, rank, and filter large volumes of submissions. The problem is you end up with applications that all look the same, even if the process feels more efficient. An AI-written CV looks neat, but it often reads like hundreds of others, stripping away the individuality that helps you stand out.
“AI screening also carries the same risk. Algorithms surface candidates who match keywords and patterns, but can also eliminate people who might excel with the right context. That means strong applicants can fall through the cracks simply because their CV doesn’t “speak AI.”
“For me, AI works best as a support tool, not a substitute for judgement. It can help applicants with formatting or phrasing, but the content should still reflect their own voice and achievements. For HR, AI can take away repetitive admin, but should never replace human assessment of fit, potential, and personality.
“Penalising applicants for AI use is hard to justify when employers are using the same technology themselves. What seems fair is expecting candidates to go beyond copy-and-paste outputs. Employers want signs of effort and individuality, not just a machine-generated summary.”
Ayesha Ansari, AI Strategy Lead at Harri
“In an environment where every word can influence whether a CV is even seen, AI can offer a lifeline for candidates. Increased competition and automated screening, requires skills to be presented in a sharper, more polished way. Where some may have hired a CV coach previously, candidates can now access this expertise for free using AI tools. For many, a more polished and concise CV can absolutely translate in increased interview opportunities.
“The use of AI has also become invaluable for hiring teams. The volume of applications today is huge, and many CVs are written or formulated badly. This results in hiring managers missing out on suitable candidates, based solely on the strength of their CV. AI in this sense, ensure that candidates can not only screen applications quickly, but are receiving a better standard of application overall.
“There is nothing inherently wrong with applying AI within the application process. The risk exists when AI generated content becomes overly generic or misrepresents skills, which can hurt both candidates and employers. Human oversight from candidates is an important step to ensure skills match-up with reality, which becomes easily identifiable during the interview process.
“If employers use AI to streamline their side of the process, it seems inconsistent and almost unfair to penalise candidates for doing the same. What matters is how AI is used. If a candidate uses AI to polish wording or structure, that’s not fundamentally different from using a spellchecker or a CV template. But if AI is used to fabricate experiences or inflate qualifications, that’s a clear ethical issue. Employers should focus less on whether AI was used, and more on whether the information is authentic and aligns with the role.
“It may also become interesting in the future if AI tools are actually used to differentiate between candidates who have used AI vs those who have not. There will be further questions on the practicality of this differentiation and also the trust in such systems. It again comes back to the ‘human in the loop’ concept where AI needs to be used in tandem with human oversight.”
Doug Betts, HR Expert and Founder of Sure Betts HR Solutions
“The hiring landscape is being reshaped faster than employers and recruiters can keep up with: candidates are increasingly using AI to write and polish their CVs, while HR teams and recruiters deploy AI-driven tools to sift, score, and shortlist applicants. On paper, it looks efficient. In reality, it risks undermining the very thing recruitment is meant to achieve – finding the best people.”
Should applicants and HR be using AI this way?
“Yes, but with clear boundaries. AI is a useful co-pilot, not a decision-maker. For candidates, that means using AI to refine wording or structure, but not to invent skills or rewrite their career story beyond recognition. For recruiters, AI is best used to handle volume and highlight patterns, not to make final judgements. Human oversight remains critical to catch the nuance algorithms miss.”
Is it fair to penalise applicants for using AI?
“Here lies a tension. Many organisations are penalising or rejecting AI-assisted CVs, yet those same organisations are relying on AI to filter candidates. This risks being seen as hypocritical. The more constructive approach is transparency: encourage applicants to be upfront about AI use, and make hiring processes open about where and how AI is applied.
What HR leaders, Recruiters and Hiring Managers need to do now
- “Redesign the process, not just the tools. If everyone is using AI, the CV as we know it may become less useful. Place greater weight on work samples, skills assessments, and interviews that showcase real capability. This includes training managers on asking the right behavioural questions at interviews to ensure the candidate is a good cultural fit.
- Audit your AI tools. Regularly test for bias and false negatives. If the right candidates aren’t making it through, the tool isn’t doing its job.
- Prioritise human judgement. Use AI to support efficiency but keep people in the loop for decisions that shape careers.
- Communicate openly. Set clear expectations for both candidates and hiring managers on how AI fits into the process. Remember that recruitment is a two way sales process and that employers need to be selling a great experience to a potential hire from the moment they decide to apply.
“AI will continue to play a role in recruitment, but the organisations that succeed will be those who use it thoughtfully – as an aid to human decision-making, not a replacement. Hiring is still about people, and the best employers will never lose sight of that.”
Rebecca Carr, CEO of SmartRecruiters
“AI is changing how both candidates and recruiters approach hiring. Applicants are increasingly using tools to draft and tailor CVs, while recruiters rely on AI to manage the growing volume of applications, automate triage and reduce the manual work that slows hiring down.
“Our Recruitment Benchmarks 2025 Report shows the average time to hire in the UK is 47 days compared to 43 globally, highlighting how outdated processes and administrative drag are slowing recruitment. These pressures explain why both recruiters and applicants are turning to AI. Recruiters use it to automate repetitive tasks such as scheduling and shortlisting, while candidates use it to refine and tailor their applications. When governed responsibly, AI can speed up hiring, reduce bias and free recruiters to focus on human judgement and relationship building.
“For candidates, AI offers some advantages but also risks. Generated CVs can lead to applications that look alike and weaken authenticity. Recruiters do not want a machine written document; they want to understand the real strengths and potential of an applicant. Used responsibly, AI can support candidates in telling their story more clearly, but it should not remove their voice from the process.
“It is understandable that some companies question whether it is fair for candidates to use AI while recruiters do the same. The issue is not whether AI is used but how it is applied. The businesses that will succeed are those that embrace AI transparently and responsibly, improve fairness and efficiency, and create hiring journeys that are faster and more human.”
Dani Foust, Director of Global Talent Acquisition at Pluralsight
“With AI skills in high demand, the tendency to exaggerate AI knowledge is also on the rise, and it often begins with the job application process. Half of today’s job seekers use AI to support their applications, while 77% say they have used it to exaggerate or lie about their skills on a CV. Our recent AI Skills Report found this AI exaggeration to be true in the workplace too: over three quarters (77%) of UK executives and technology workers admit they have pretended to know more about AI than they actually do.
“As AI tools become central to operations in the modern workplace, hiring managers shouldn’t show prejudice towards or against applicants who use AI to support their applications. Instead, the hiring process should be viewed as an opportunity to evaluate not just what candidates submit, but how they use AI to do it. In this light, the application process can be the first test of whether a candidate will use AI as an assistant in the process of creating a high-quality work product or rely on it too heavily without knowing how it works.
“In the short term, skills assessments and aptitude tests will help recruiters identify the best candidates for long-term growth, and whether they have the correct technical skills to succeed. These tools should be used as a supplement to CVs and cover letters to get a comprehensive view of the individual’s competency.”
