Artificial intelligence has changed recruitment from both sides of the table. Candidates can now produce polished CVs and cover letters in minutes, while employers can process applications at a scale that was previously impossible.
The problem is that presentation has become easier to manufacture.
A professionally written CV may no longer reflect a candidate’s actual communication ability, attention to detail or depth of experience. This does not mean organisations should reject applicants who use AI. It means HR teams must become better at assessing the person behind the application.
Do Not Make AI Use the Offence
Using AI to improve a CV is not automatically dishonest. Candidates have always received help from friends, career coaches, templates and professional CV writers. AI is another form of assistance.
The real concern should be misrepresentation.
Has the candidate invented responsibilities? Are their achievements exaggerated? Can they explain the experience presented in the CV? Do they possess the skills they claim?
Trying to determine whether a document was written by AI can distract recruiters from the more important task of determining whether it is accurate.
AI-detection tools are also not reliable enough to make hiring decisions on their own. Strong writers may be wrongly flagged, while heavily edited AI content may go unnoticed.
Look for Substance Behind the Language
AI-generated CVs often contain polished statements that provide little meaningful information. Common examples include claims such as “driving strategic initiatives,” “delivering exceptional results” or “optimising operational efficiency” without explaining what was actually done.
Recruiters should look beyond the language and ask:
- What was the candidate personally responsible for?
- What action did they take?
- What tools, systems or processes did they use?
- What changed because of their contribution?
- Can the achievement be explained or verified?
A credible achievement should survive follow-up questions.
If a candidate states that they increased sales by 40%, ask what period was measured, what the starting point was, which actions contributed to the increase and how their individual contribution was determined.
Build Verification Into the Interview
Interviews should test understanding rather than reward memorisation.
Instead of relying heavily on predictable questions, ask candidates to expand on specific details from their CV. For example:
“You mentioned improving the monthly reporting process. What was wrong with the previous process, and what exactly did you change?”
Follow the answer with practical questions:
- Who else was involved?
- What challenges did you encounter?
- What would you do differently now?
- How did you know the change had worked?
Candidates with genuine experience can usually discuss the context, decisions and difficulties involved. Fabricated experience often becomes less convincing once the conversation moves beyond the polished statement.
Use Practical, Job-Related Assessments
Where possible, include a short task that reflects the actual role.
An administrator could be asked to organise a sample schedule. A marketer might review a campaign brief. An accountant could interpret a simplified financial record. A customer service candidate might respond to a realistic complaint.
The assessment should be proportionate to the position and respectful of the candidate’s time. Its purpose is not to obtain free work. It is to observe how the person thinks and applies their knowledge.
If AI use is permitted during the task, say so. You can then assess whether the candidate uses it intelligently, checks its output and applies professional judgement. If AI is not permitted, communicate that clearly and supervise the exercise appropriately.
Introduce Real-Time Discussion
A brief live conversation can reveal more than another automated screening stage.
Ask candidates to explain a work process in simple language, respond to a realistic situation or think through an unfamiliar problem. The goal is not to catch them out. It is to understand how they communicate, reason and respond when an answer cannot simply be copied.
For remote recruitment, part of the assessment can include a live discussion of a previously submitted task. Ask the candidate why they chose a particular approach and what alternatives they considered.
Check for Consistency
Review whether the information across the CV, application form, LinkedIn profile, interview responses and references is reasonably consistent.
Minor differences are normal. Major changes in job titles, dates, responsibilities or achievements require clarification.
Reference checks should also move beyond confirming employment dates. With the candidate’s consent, ask former supervisors about the responsibilities most relevant to the position being filled.
Train Recruiters to Recognise Authentic Evidence
Recruitment teams should not confuse excellent writing with excellent performance OR imperfect writing with lack of ability.
Some candidates will have highly polished applications because they used AI or professional assistance. Others may have valuable experience but weaker presentation skills. HR must assess communication at the level genuinely required by the role.
Recruiters should be trained to identify evidence, probe claims fairly and separate presentation quality from actual capability.
Redesign Recruitment for the AI Era
The solution is not an endless contest between AI-generated applications and AI-detection software. It is a recruitment process that depends less on polished claims and more on demonstrated ability.
A stronger process combines:
- Structured application questions
- Focused CV screening
- Behavioural interviews
- Role-specific practical assessments
- Consistency checks
- Appropriate reference verification
AI has made it easier to create an impressive first impression. HR must therefore become more deliberate about what happens after that first impression.
The objective is not to separate people who use AI from those who do not. It is to distinguish genuine capability from manufactured credibility—and ensure that the person hired can perform beyond the page.