If everyone uses AI how do employers choose who to interview?

[dontcomeatme]

This is more of a curiosity than a real AIBU. Basically my DW is applying for a new job, it's definitely a step up in her career but quite a natural curve for her current experience and skills.
The application is gruelling. Last night she started using AI to help with the answers and to get all of the job specifications into her paragraphs. She was using something called copilot? I have never used AI before and I was intrigued. Her answers sound amazing and she was able to put in personal experiences and information.
My question would be, surely the employers are aware of AI, and if everyone uses this type of software to make their application look and sound better, how on earth would they decide who to give an interview to?
Surely any person idiot with a computer or phone can use AI to make themselves sound absolutely amazing and perfect for the job, but unless they meet in person they have no idea what they're actually like? How are employers going to get around this? Just interview every single application?
I mentioned this to DW last night and she said I made her feel like a cheat, which was not my intention at all! Genuinely curious how company's will navigate this. But I suppose it goes deeper than that doesn't it, college essays could be completely written by AI, how would anyone know? A whole new world to me this!

I do agree. I also get annoyed when I look at jobs and they have no salary. It's not fair to expect people to apply if they can't know what income they'll be relying upon.

The WFH situation is an interesting one though as salaries used to be area specific. I suspect that will be changing a lot of demographics and applicants might be willing to travel hours by train if they only have to do that twice a week.

It is really obvious who has used AI for cover letters especially. The phraseology is often a bit weird and you can often spot the weirdness in multiple cover letters which is a big giveaway . I look at CVs to see if they have relevant experience. I check to see if people have moved around a lot (usually a bit of a red flag).

My advice is tailor your cover letter YOURSELF and showcase why your experience matches the job description.

The best way is to use AI for ideas and help with structuring etc but to write the actual application yourself.

I've said this before but I cannot believe we're back to this as a suggestion - this was (shit but effective then) SEO advice in about 1996 😭

In my job we can get loads of applications but wouldn't normally shortlist more than 5, often less. We dismiss the majority because they have no relevant training or experience, or live in South Africa or whatever, then mull over the rest. The personal statements can be suspiciously overly well-written but non specific and the parts they've filled in re previous jobs etc seem like they're written by someone else completely.

So we usually end up deciding based on prior experience / training and any clear examples they give.

When interviewing often the impression we get is very different. We also observe them on a task first and that is a huge part of the process.

That's what I did for the statement of suitability for the civil service job I accepted the offer for last week. Still no start date yet.

Especially when they wanted near to 250 words. The word limit is a weak point for me. As when at college and then uni, when did assignments which had a X-Y word limit, I was just about 2-3 sentences past X, around 15-40 words!

I fed in the JD, my CV and the behaviours of success based on my job of civil service jobs into AI saying needs to be near to 250 words. Used the answer produced as a template. Then for examples. If one was 18 words long, I made my example contained 18 words.

If you are applying for civil service jobs and not read this website - especially your grade and definitions of behaviours https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/success-profiles/success-profiles-civil-service-behaviours - you probably won't get far. The behaviours based on your role are on the bottom of the job listings.

I think the problem for recruiters though is the vast majority of applicants, certainly for professional jobs, now recognise this - as evidenced by this thread. It's easy to spot a statement that is pure AI but few are, most people have the sense to tweak and adjust what AI gives them. That's what is making recruiters' lives harder.

Daughter had a 'pre-interview' on zoom, where they wanted to meet and talk through what the job involved and whether they as a person would fit in with the company. I think she said the 'rule out AI' question was along the lines of 'what do you like about our website and what would you change about it to improve it from a customer perspective?' (not really related to the post advertised, but would show the candidate was interested in the company and what they do). Luckily daughter adores their product range and as a consequence is VERY familiar with their website and what they sell and could instantly offer good feedback and suggest various improvements. Next interview will be more related to the job and in person.

If anyone is struggling with "AI" they can always run their own ...

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/31/local_llm_opinion_column/

Good luck @DeeKitch !!

Thanks helmet

Not at all - considering moving to new office - more travel time is all

good luck to you too

They are OK about using it to pull answers together but it has to be based on your own genuine experience and skills.

What I look for is that the underlying skills and experience are what’s required. If the example is weak then no amount of AI can disguise it.

Its not cheating.

I have reviewed video interviews where people are clearly reading AI answers. I have also done live interviews over Teams where occasionally the answer is obviously AI as it bears little resemblance to the question asked.

You get good at looking through it to what’s underneath.

Desperate in what way?

You don’t seem to have anything helpful to add to threads, just arguing with the OP

im confused, this isn’t what the op is asking?

I can guarantee DH has been filtered out by AI recently. Even at top level head hunters are screening out for example "degree". DH is 59, very senior, top level experience, one of only a few with his type of experience. Head hunters have called, if they use their brains rather than AI, because. .. how in earth did you do all this without a degree????

Well back in the eighties not everyone went university, in fact most didn't. You therefore are discounting a hugely experienced cohort of older talent.

This issue is often the input it's given, rather than the output

AI is sexist. It has been shown to recommend vastly different salary expectations based on if the applicant is a man or a woman.

People using AI for job applications is a good thing- it makes the process more inclusive for people who struggle with communication or writing. There are whole swathes of jobs that it's possible to be really qualified for that don't require good CV or application writing skills for, and now those people have a fairer shot.

The trouble, as with anything AI, is people using it without engaging their brains. AI isn't a replacement for your own thinking, but it's a very powerful tool to be used alongside.

As for how companies are going to filter out applicants- as many have said, a lot will use AI themselves. More companies are moving towards skills-based assessments, as CVs and cover letters themselves are becoming outdated and there is a lot of data which suggests hiring with those is a fast track to bias and churn. (My credentials- I work in this area!)

I should point out that the -ize ending is not particularly an Americanism, so don't discriminate on that basis thinking it's a sign of AI.

I can spot an AI CV a mile off. Straight in the bin

You get good at spotting AI generated CVs. I usually go straight to qualifications, often it's an immediate no from there for what I'm looking for. A load of AI generated bluster doesn't cover up the bottom line.

I can generally spot AI-written CVs, but what I care about are skills and experience. I don't care if they are wrapped in flowery language with a bow on top. What I get really annoyed about and it's an immediate rejection is the use of ChatGpt and similar during the interview. It's increasingly common and we'll be moving back to face to face interviews because of it.

My dd applied for nhs job, there was a disclaimer which said." If I use AI i will be prepared to discuss why I used AI"
Where she worked they also had 4 identical applications which scored perfectly on the scoring. They had to interview them. I dont know how they did in interviews.