To think that using AI detection for CVs is flawed?

[StillSurface]

I saw a job advert that said “We use AI detector software. Cover letters or CVs with over 80% AI-generated content will be disregarded.”

But how can it tell if it’s “AI-generated” if you’re just writing clearly about your own experience? If I use good grammar and a structured layout, does that mean I’ve used AI? Isn’t the point of a CV to sound polished?

It seems unfair when the tools they’re using aren’t even always accurate. AIBU to think they’re going about this the wrong way?

I’ve just reviewed 150 applications and CVs recently. You can just tell- the information becomes so generic and they are all formatted the same way (invariably terribly). Fine to use it to help you refine your existing wording here and there, but having it rewrite your input entirely, or generate a PS without your own input, is pointless as they all end up sounding the same and not having enough specific information to be awarded marks. Software detects the likelihood of text being AI generated by seeing if the words in each sentence are the most likely words that would follow the preceding words. When we write freely, even when very formally, scores for AI likelihood will be extremely low. I had many applications at 80-90% and that always aligned with my views when reading it. I wouldn’t worry about a score below 30-40% as to me that’s someone using the tool without relying on it. When you have 100+ CVs and Statements to review, the personally written ones do stand out these days!

You have a very simplistic view of what AI does in these situations. It's not just about structure. It's well explained above. But it's not just the word likelihood. It's grammar, tenses, the use of certain words and phrases. And if course, the em-dash ;)

I think its a brilliant tool - I wouldn't apply for a job without it.

The AI detectors are not at all foolproof, so anyone relying on it is doing themselves a disservice. I fed an essay I wrote 9 years ago into an AI detector recently and it came back with a more than 80% chance of it being AI-generated. Er....

You don’t even need a tool now, it is so obvious as a recruiter - ‘Foster’ ‘Organize’ ‘Strategize’ em dash and the commas after ‘and,’ are just some. Others are application form sections written in different tone and font to others.
it is so lazy. I’ve asked candidates in interview to expand on the buzzwords used in their application ‘results-driven’ ‘detail-oriented’ ‘fast-paced environment’ ‘experience optimizing processes’ and provide specific real life examples - they couldn’t.
when it is this obvious it is lazy and I won’t shortlist you. Use it as a guide and inspiration, but don’t be lazy or obvious as why will a company want to hire you when they can just use Chat GaryPT for free and if you do use, ensure you are able to provide specific, measurable, real life examples

University lecturer here...

I have to review hundreds of pieces of written work, and have used many AI checkers. Here is the short version:

Most checkers are very good at distinguishing between 100% AI work, and 100% Human work. Their accuracy is very good when it comes to 100% human work, and they are very very unlikely to rate it as 100% AI generated.

However, they are very unreliable when it comes to a combination of AI and human writing. For example:

Human written - AI checked/fixed
Human written - AI improved word choice
AI written - human adapted
Human written - AI translated
etc.

In those scenarios they can be very unreliable and different checkers can produce different results.

AI writing isn't distinguished by being well written or structured though. It tends to be a shallow word-salad that throws in a glossary of key words, in very bland and average sentences. The checkers have a whole load of markers that they use, uniform sentence length, overuse of certain words and punctuation and structures etc. Even without a checker, it is increasingly obvious to anyone who has read quite a bit of AI writing, what is human and what isn't. AI has a style, that you have to work very hard to get AI to remove by itself.

So your own CV is unlikely to be flagged for AI if you did it yourself. The only people who should worry about AI checking, is those who did use AI.

(That being said, if writing is not a competency of the job, then I don't personally see the problem in using an AI app to help speed up a very tedious process)

I'm guessing you haven't recruited lately and received a few hundred AI generated applications! It's not the good grammar and structured layout that gives it away, it's the tedious word salad.

I have always used the em dash in my writing. The Oxford comma less so but sometimes it’s needed. Well structured writing is something I have worked hard to learn so it doesn’t seem right if the immediate response is that it is AI.

I have found that what I thought was my own good CV is not making it past the AI selector. Every job I have applied for via a human (eg directly with recruiter) I have had an interview for but all the ones I’ve uploaded my CV for I haven’t. Why is this what does AI screener look for.

Its the use of the em-dash to the exclusion of all else. When I write with em-dashes, I also use en-dashes depending on the need. AI only ever uses the em-dash.

Reading the comments, is this just a lazy way to sift CVs?
I mean if you have 100+ to review as one poster suggested, then using an AI reviewer would save a lot of time. The irony 🙄

I'm pretty sure mine are being rejected by AI because I get a notification to say my application has been reviewed then within seconds "not selected"

So I've tweaked my non AI CV and covering letter to include some of the words written in the job description which appears to have worked. I applied for a job and instead of getting an immediate rejection I got a generic thanks for the application, we are reviewing and will get back to you.

So I've tweaked my non AI CV and covering letter to include some of the words written in the job description which appears to have worked.

Whether AI or human reviewed, that's what you should be doing anyway! That is quite literally what recruiters are checking for - do you have the skills required for the job. Your cv and cover letter should both be targeted at the job you are applying for, so should mention what is wanted.

The em dash one is interesting to me because my Word autocorrects to em dashes.