Should recruiters reject candidates who use AI ? – TechInformed

AI tools are becoming an integral part of life, from banking chatbots to minute-taking copilots. But as AI expands its reach into recruitment, a new question arises: should candidates use AI for job applications? And is it fair to do so?

On one hand, it’s a tough job market out there. According to the UK’s Recruitment and Employment Federation most IT professions had at least a 40% year-on-year drop in advertised roles in 2024.

However, it appears that even some AI companies are exhausted by the volume of generic applications they’re receiving.

Last month it was reported that Anthropic, the creator of the Claude AI chatbot, wanted to assess applicants’ genuine interest in the firm and “non-AI assisted communication skills”.

“We want to understand your personal interest in Anthropic without mediation through an AI system, and we also want to evaluate your non-AI assisted communication skills,” the firm stated on its site.

A recent survey conducted by UK recruiter CharityJob, which gathered responses from 2,309 job seekers and 97 recruiters, has painted a detailed picture of attitudes towards AI in the hiring process.

The survey highlighted a mixed outlook on AI’s growing influence in recruitment. While 43% of candidates believed AI could improve their chances in the application process, 60% felt that its increasing use made it harder to stand out from the competition.

A further 77% of respondents said they would rather have a human recruiter review their application than an AI system.

When asked about fairness, responses were split: half of candidates felt it was fair to use AI to aid their applications. However, the survey also revealed a clear preference for human oversight.

This month LinkedIn has been abuzz with voices debating whether AI use in applications is fair and whether this approach attracts the right candidates for the job.

Katie Dolgin, CEO of Canadian recruitment firm Found People, put a plea out on LinkedIn, urging job seekers not to use AI because it comes across as inauthentic.

“I’ve seen a growing trend in AI-generated content in resumes and cover letters, and here’s my take: if I can tell it’s written by ChatGPT (or any AI), I immediately reject it.

“Why? Because authenticity matters more than perfection. Your unique voice is what sets you apart. People connect with real experiences, real insights, and real perspectives – not a polished and generic AI response. Perfectly worded but soulless content won’t get you far.

“Take the time to craft your own message, even if it’s not flawless. AI is only a tool, not the job-searching solution. Imperfections make you human, relatable, and real,” she advised.

Dolgin’s views are backed by a 2024 report by Resume Builder, in which 70% of surveyed hiring managers said they preferred resumes that reflected a candidate’s authentic writing style over those enhanced by AI tools.

In a separate LI post, AI advocate Christopher Coey, who works in the gaming industry, urged hiring managers to: “Stop trying to ‘spot the AI’ and auto-reject candidates just because you suspect they might be using AI to aid their application process.”

Coey argued that these assumptions were often incorrect and may cause great candidates to be overlooked.

He added that instead of punishing candidates for adapting to modern tools, hiring managers should focus on the applicant’s actual skills and potential.

“Are they so wiped out from the constant rejections, the endless hoops, and the gauntlet that is the modern job application process that they reused an answer or used an AI tool to speed things up? I’m guessing they put more effort into applying for the position than your team put into designing those questions.”

However, replying to Dolgin’s post, Owner/Operator at DB Custom Digital Photography in Texas questioned the quality of candidates’ employers receive through AI.

“It’s almost like  allowing a more talented friend to do your resume. In that regard, who exactly would I be hiring? Who would be problem-solving during a rolling blackout?

“Certainly there are jobs where having the ability to use AI is warranted. On the job, it’s a tool. I just don’t see it as acceptable for the resume. I can’t shake the bot’s hand, much less look it in the eye,” he added.

The CharityJob survey revealed, however, that use of AI isn’t as prevalent as people might think. While 82% of survey respondents said they were either ‘somewhat familiar’, ‘very familiar’, or ‘extremely familiar’ with AI, over half said they had never turned to AI for application support.

Of those yet to adopt AI, 26% said they were likely to do so in the future, while nearly half (48%) expressed reluctance.

Among those who have used AI, its applications varied. The most common use was drafting cover letters, cited by 41% of respondents.

A quarter reported using AI for interview preparation, while others found value in improving grammar, summarising text more clearly, or enhancing overall coherence.

Perhaps what is needed is a balance between using AI and preserving authentic voices. Using an AI platform to practice interview questions, or to formulate an initial structure for a cover letter, for instance, seems like a fair enough practice.

A study by The Conference Board has found that 63% of HR leaders are now developing new guidelines to balance AI assistance with preserving individual expression in job applications, suggesting that this middle ground is the likely way forward.