Why this Career Coach is wary of AI

I can see it happening, and I’m sure hiring managers can see it, too. AI is creeping into CVs and applications. At first glance, it seems to make sense. Simply feed the machine the job you want, plus your current CV, and it will create a tailored version to increase your chances of an interview. Yet, the human touch, and YOUR personality, is stripped right out. Today, I want to talk about why this Career Coach is wary of AI.

You can call me a Luddite; hey, I started my career utilising my feature detection skills whilst reviewing printed-off CVs. And then I faxed them over to clients. However, I’d like to think I am forward-thinking enough to recognise valuable progress when I see it. AI being used to spot cancer at a more accurate rate than the human eye; yes please!  AI for creating applications, CVs, and shortlisting. That doesn’t sit right with me!

What gets people through the initial screening of a role and in front of the decision-makers is an understanding of who you are and how you fit the role. That requires flexibility in cognitive abilities that I don’t think an AI model will ever be able to replicate. It requires originality, new patterns of thinking, and your unique personality. When you use an AI model to generate your CV, it’s simply drawing on outdated, stale, and limited data that it holds. Just a rinse and repeat process!

After more than twenty years in the industry, I still see the same advice about CVs and applications being rolled out. The determined “No longer than two pages”. The insistent “Write in the third person.” Yet, all the work I do with clients on a 1:1 basis just shows that is not the case. CVs need to be as unique as the person they represent.

Sure, there is some value in spellchecking and clarity (while ensuring your native language is enabled), but anything beyond that, I feel you are doing yourself a disservice.

There is still considerable confusion and suspicion surrounding AI-generated content. Hiring Managers report they can “tell” when a CV is AI-generated. Yet, in direct contrast, in recent times, social media has incorrectly attributed the “em-dash” (—) to AI-generated content. Professional writers argue that it isn’t always the case.

I thought I would reach out to my old recruitment “stomping ground”, the fantastic Creative Resource, and ask their thoughts on the development of AI in this space. Director Phil Cookson replied:

“From a recruitment perspective, we are seeing some CVs showing hints of AI. From my perspective, if you can use AI to improve your own words and highlight your experience better than you can yourself, then why not? Haven’t we had spelling and grammar check on Microsoft Word for more than a quarter of a century to improve CV spelling and grammar? But I would always encourage anyone to take the AI-generated CV and words and to review it to ensure it sounds like you and your personality. However, if the role you’re applying for requires you to write extensively, then I’m sure it would be frowned upon if you used AI to enhance your CV, so be careful about how and when you utilise this new technology. “

 

There are even more significant issues at hand. While organisations are dismayed by the AI-generated applications they receive, and others are cautiously accepting them,  AI and automation are becoming a greater part of selection process. This opens up a whole new set of concerns!

As we saw within Sway, bias, stereotypes, and judgements are hard-wired into programmes by the very people who design them. Applicant Tracking Systems have these issues, from preferences for hobbies that are similar to existing staff, gendered languages, and not picking up on the subtlety in relevant or transferable experiences and qualifications. With AI, I fear that this trend is only going to worsen, as it is likely to create and expand these biases. As we know from the many, quite rightly so, scandals and legal challenges around artists’ work being used to train programmes, we don’t have full transparency around what these new and evolving systems are going to use and how this is going to be programmed into the systems

This is already happening. As reported on the BBC in February 2024, fantastic and highly qualified candidates are getting screened out, from bias in “body language” screening to ageism, racism, sexism and “group think.”

All of this is highly problematic before we even move to the impact on the climate. The current servers are seen to use a significant amount of water to power them; I am sure the early adopters and those creating AI-based businesses will tell me that it’s scaremongering, but this is something that we need to consider seriously.

So, what is the answer? For those who can make decisions about their employee attraction strategy, consider if AI is the right approach. If, due to volume and resources, it feels like a must-use, then ensure you acknowledge and actively address the issues it can raise, both environmentally and ethically. Hold the suppliers you use accountable and integrate the elements into your procurement process.

For individuals, I would keep the “human” in the human resources for as long as possible. Write your CVs yourself. Create applications and CVs that are tailored to the role, allowing your personality to shine through. Even if employers are using these systems, you can ensure that you are representing the real you when you apply.

 

What do you think? Is it time we push back on the over-automation of recruitment?

 

If you would like to learn more about my approach to CVs and job searching, you can find more blogs here incuding:

How can I future proof my career against AI?

Why pay for career advice when I can get it for free from ChatGPT?