The Job Hunt in the Age of Generative AI

29

September

2025

No ratings yet.

One of the most interesting fields I have used Generative AI as of now, is in the context of job applications. I often struggled with wording when creating my resume and cover letters, such as how to appear professional without being generic or how to modify the same experience for different professions. I was able to more clearly reframe my job experience with the assistance of tools like ChatGPT or Perplexity. For instance, they recommended me to reformulate lines like “Supported business development” into “Conducted market analysis and prepared client proposals, helping to improve communication”. Although it didn´t create anything, it did assist me in using more powerful words to express my accomplishments.

Meanwhile, I noticed that businesses are also beginning to use AI in their hiring procedures. AI-powered applicant tracking systems, also known as ATS, that search resumes for keywords are already used by some HR departments. Now, generative AI goes one step further by being able to autonomously create applicant summaries, create job descriptions and even recommend interview questions. In theory, this may result in a quicker and more reliable hiring procedure.

However, the risks are easy to define. AI adoption by recruiters and applicants may turn the process into a sort of “autonomation arms race”. AI-generated keywords are used by applicants to optimise their resumes and by recruiters it is used to filter them. In such a system, the questions come up: What is happening to authenticity? And by favouring particular educational backgrounds or language patterns, who makes sure AI doesn´t reproduce biases?

In my view, generative AI is most useful when it increases clarity rather than when it replaces human decisions. I think the difficulty in hiring is finding a balance between fairness and efficiency. When applied properly, AI can help candidates express themselves more effectively and help businesses manage high application quantities. However, there is the risk of turning humans into automatic patterns and keywords if it takes over the process. It is impossible for an algorithm to fully imitate human characteristics like creativity, motivation and cultural fit.

The key question regarding this interesting topic remains: How can we make sure AI not only speeds up recruiting but also makes it more transparent and inclusive?

Sources:
https://www.cmu.edu/intelligentbusiness/expertise/gen-ai-in-hiring_lee_100323.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02079-x

Please rate this

The AI Standoff: Are We Losing the Human in Hiring?

17

September

2025

5/5 (1)

The job application process has become a peculiar digital dance. On one side, applicants use AI to craft perfectly tailored resumes and cover letters, optimized with keywords to navigate automated screening systems (Milmo & Almeida, 2025). On the other, companies employ their own AI to sift through this deluge of applications, searching for those very same keywords (Goergen et al., 2025). This AI-versus-AI scenario begs the question: in this race for robotic perfection, what’s the point?

This technological arms race in recruitment is rapidly changing the hiring landscape. For job seekers, AI tools can level the playing field, helping them articulate their skills more effectively and navigate the complex world of Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) (Milmo & Almeida, 2025). Companies, in turn, leverage AI to manage the sheer volume of applications and increase efficiency, reducing the time it takes to hire (Goergen et al., 2025).

However, this automation on both sides creates a potential crisis of authenticity. When a candidate’s application is AI-generated and a company’s initial screening is AI-conducted, the process risks becoming a sterile transaction devoid of human connection. Recruiters report receiving applications that are polished yet impersonal, lacking the individual voice that reveals a candidate’s true personality and potential cultural fit (Sandle, 2025).

This isn’t to say that AI has no place in hiring. The benefits of increased efficiency and the potential to reduce unconscious bias are significant (Goergen et al., 2025). AI can handle the repetitive, administrative tasks, freeing up human recruiters to focus on what they do best: building relationships and engaging with candidates on a deeper level.

The ultimate goal of recruitment is to find the right person for the right role, a task that requires understanding nuances that algorithms may miss. While AI can be a powerful assistant, it should not be the sole decision-maker. The future of effective hiring lies in a hybrid approach, where technology augments human intuition and insight.

So, as we navigate this new era of AI-driven recruitment, let’s not lose sight of the human element. For applicants, AI should be a tool to enhance, not replace, their unique voice. For companies, AI should be a means to identify talent, not a barrier to genuine connection. After all, a successful hire is about more than matching keywords on a screen; it’s about finding a person who will thrive within a team and contribute to a shared vision. In the end, the most meaningful connections are still made between people, not algorithms.

References:

Goergen, J., De Bellis, E., & Klesse, A. (2025, 14 juli). How AI Assessment Tools Affect Job Candidates’ Behavior. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior

Milmo, D., & Almeida, L. (2025, 16 juli). Teach First job applicants will get in-person interviews after more apply using AI. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/13/graduates-teach-first-in-person-interviews-ai

Sandle, T. (2025, 30 augustus). The rise of AI job applications: What UK employers need to watch for. Digital Journal. https://www.digitaljournal.com/business/the-rise-of-ai-job-applications-what-uk-employers-need-to-watch-for/article

Please rate this

Hiring Process – Double Information Asymmetry

9

October

2021

No ratings yet.

Hiring efforts can be considered futile when a freshly on-boarded employee decides to leave the company after barely a month of two of trial. However, recently companies have come to the conclusion that these mishaps might be due to a reason other than the fault of the specific individual that decided to leave the company.

Many of you probably know this already, hiring processes nowadays are extremely complex in their format. Usually composed of a multitude of stages from interviews to technical tests, the average hiring process takes about one month to be complete. The essential lesson here is that if a person decides to leave during their trial period, it is not due to a lack of motivation as they had the will to through the entirety of the hiring process in the first place.

The problem that was investigated was an instance of double information asymmetry.

On the job seeker perspective, the candidates have the advantage of knowing exactly what is sought after by the companies. By analyzing the job description, a person could precisely determine what experiences, traits of character or values that the company is looking for. Usually, by exploiting this information, the candidates will personalize and modify their profile in order to meet the employer’s wants. This is a case of Morale Hazard as the misinformation is conducted prior to the transaction, i.e. hiring that person, under the form of signaling the employer with non-representative characteristics.

On the other side, from the point of view of the employer within a company, the job description will also be an altered version of what the real job is. The Morale Hazard here is also done through signaling, by misrepresenting the core job functions in order to attract as much talent as possible. For example, stating that the job’s missions are usually 50% administrative tasks and 50% project management tasks while in reality the ratio might be closer to 80-20.


Interviews are used as screening tools to try to separate the most suited candidates from the least suited. However, these tools can prove to be less effective than expected as the interviewee can easily prepare for it in a non-truthful way.

Here we mention ‘non-truthful’ or mention how sneaky it might be to exaggerate about your profile, but the candidates cannot be blamed. The double information asymmetry happens because there is also an asymmetry of goals.

On one side, the goal of the job seekers is to get the job. It is not to ‘enhance the company’s growth’ or ‘help them in their mission’ as commonly stated during interviews, but often it is simply to get hired. And on the other side, of course the company’s goal is to find the best person for the job at a reasonable salary.

An interesting solution to put an end to this information asymmetry would be to use platforms that accept only one resume per candidate (instead of one per job application) and where details about the job description are revealed later, such as during the first interview.

What are your thoughts and ideas to tackle this information asymmetry?

Resources:
LinkedIn post that inspired me (in French):
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6851817268762968064/

Article for further discussion:
https://www.business2community.com/human-resources/how-to-crush-hiring-by-recognizing-information-asymmetry-02251645

Please rate this