AI vs. AI: Who’s Fooling Whom in Recruitment?
Hi TA leaders,
Let’s talk about something that’s been gnawing at me: the double standard in how we treat AI in the hiring process.
A recent Fortune article about Anthropic’s hiring practice lays it out on a platter:
“Anthropic is known for its AI innovations—but the company doesn’t want job candidates using the technology… ‘While we encourage people to use AI systems during their role to help them work faster and more effectively, please do not use AI assistants during the application process’”
And Anthropic isn’t alone. Across the industry, we see this pattern: Hiring ops using AI = good; Candidates using AI = bad. I get it—hiring managers value authenticity. Trust is built on knowing who a candidate truly is. But this construct? It isn’t doing anyone any favors.
Why the Double Standard?
Let’s be real: recruiters and hiring managers are leaning on AI to navigate a firehose of resumes, draft job descriptions, respond to candidates with personalized outreach, and even ]conduct candidate screening. AI is making our lives as TA professionals easier.
Now flip the script. Candidates are facing a completely different reality. It’s not one hundred applications = one job offer anymore. It’s one thousand.?
The Fortune article’s title says it all:
“This Gen Zer applied to 1,700 jobs but only received one offer.”
AI levels the playing field. It automates the repetitive, soul-crushing parts of the job search, enhances resume quality, and even helps candidates find roles they might not have considered. It’s a tool—just like it is for us.
But, according to 2024 data from CV Genius, not only do 80% of hiring managers dislike seeing AI-generated CVs and cover letters, about 74% say they can spot when AI has been used. Over 50% say that they are significantly less likely to hire an applicant who has used AI. They say they want and need to understand a candidate’s unaided communication skills and personal effort. They also see it as a sign of trustworthiness. The concept of authenticity keeps coming up.
But here’s my question: Is this really about authenticity, or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to change? Because let’s be honest—this walks like a duck.
Questions Worth Asking
If AI is the future (and it is), how should we rethink our hiring practices? There are a few things to consider:
Do we really think that a candidate’s use of AI is a deception, that they are trying to put something over on us?
Are there other ways that recruiters and hiring managers can assess a candidate’s native communication skills, and have confidence in their trustworthiness and authenticity? Isn’t interviewing (or referral) a stronger indicator?
If we toss (and ex-communicate) those candidates who we think have used AI, aren’t we potentially missing intelligent, highly motivated talent?
How do we not make excuses for AI-assisted outputs that are quite simply bad?
Given the arc of technology, is it possible that using AI to “fool” us, is an important, marketable skill?
We need to evolve. The truth is that everyone worth hiring uses AI. And if you’re hiring someone who isn’t using AI to improve their efficiency, well… are they the kind of forward-thinking talent you want??
Would love to hear your thoughts—how do we navigate this without holding candidates to an impossible standard?
What else is happening in hiring?
Dan’s Corner
This AI double standard isn’t just unfair—it’s outdated. The reality? Everyone worth hiring is using AI. Instead of resisting it, we should be figuring out how to assess candidates with AI in the equation, not against it. AI is changing the world and if you want a head start, check out this exclusive interview from CEO Steven Jiang about “Agentic AI”?
Watch it now: Agentic AI Interview??
That’s exactly why you need to join our upcoming AI Revolution in TA Webinar. I’ll be sitting down with Cielo VP of Marketing Rebecca Volpano, and Matt Jones, Chief Product Officer to talk about how AI is reshaping recruiting—right now. Register here.
Recruitment | Networking | Talent availability mapping | Interviewing | Negotiation | Assoc. CIPD
19 小时前AI is not leveling the playing field—unless a company has a solid recruitment strategy and expertise, it’s actually making things worse. The application stage is the least concerning; candidates use AI to apply, and companies use AI to filter them out, making it largely AI versus AI. The real issue arises when recruitment teams rely on AI for the next steps in candidate selection, where greater accuracy is crucial. If recruiters and HM are not well-trained in interview techniques and lack a clear understanding of their AI recruiting system—such as the benchmark data it uses or how its dataset was trained—this can become a serious problem. In such cases, they may default to AI-driven decisions without critical oversight. Concepts like automation bias and candidate "leapfrogging" need to be given serious consideration.
Social Media Marketing Specialist at Net2Solution
1 天前This is such an important conversation! If recruiters are leveraging AI to streamline hiring, it only makes sense for candidates to use it too. I’ve seen firsthand how AI-driven tools like LifeShack.com help job seekers uncover roles they might have missed otherwise. Have you come across any AI platforms that have made a real difference in the job search process?
Event Director
1 天前I agree, it's a double standard. If AI helps streamline processes for recruiters, candidates should also leverage it to enhance their applications.
Job adverts, not job descriptions.
5 天前Is there any data on what percentage of 1,700 applications are relevant?
Reverse Recruiter II | Client Strategist | Certified Professional Reverse Recruiter | Navigating the way to your dream job??
6 天前Excellent write-up! It's important to be forward-thinking, but not so much so that you're using a tool designed to amplify your strengths to make your candidacy shine like a diamond in a pile of coal. Rather, only use AI when it benefits my company....not your candidacy. Feels a bit like a double standard, don’t you think? If a candidate is smart enough to enhance their own candidacy with the help of AI, wouldn't one think they would probably be smart enough to carry that over into a work setting? Shying away from AI is, in a word, lazy.