"It's understandable. In a world where some job seekers are having to send up to 50 applications to land a role, tools like ChatGPT enable them to cast their net wide and increase their chances. But this spray-and-pray approach to job hunting is a headache for hiring managers. It's driving the volume of applications up and the quality down, making it harder to spot great candidates."
"The natural knee-jerk reaction from HR is to start playing a game of "I spy AI." If we can just root out the automated applications, we can keep it fair and find the genuine players, right? The problem is that this approach can give employers a false sense of security. Hiring teams assume that deploying AI detection tools means they've solved the problem, and it stops them from digging deeper."
AI-assisted application writing is widespread, with many job seekers using tools like ChatGPT to submit large numbers of applications. This increases application volume while lowering overall quality, making it harder for hiring teams to identify strong candidates. Relying on AI-detection tools can create false confidence and halt deeper evaluation. CVs and cover letters provide limited insight into aptitude and can trigger unconscious bias. AI-driven resume screeners can perpetuate historical inequalities if trained on unethical datasets. A switch to objective, role-relevant skills testing and skills-based hiring can reduce automation vulnerabilities and surface genuinely qualified candidates.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]