If the very companies that create AI tools do not want candidates to use them when applying for a position with them, will other employers be more accepting? — Image by freepik
In the years since the public unveiling of ChatGPT and the subsequent craze over artificial intelligence (AI), the world has seen the technology’s integration in everything from smartphones to household appliances like washing machines and refrigerators.
It also gave rise to countless self-proclaimed AI gurus on social media who tout the technology as being an almost magical solution to snagging a new job.
This came alongside recommendations for the supposed latest and greatest tools used to generate cover letters and spiff up resumes in seconds, promising to impress which-ever hiring manager ends up receiving them.
Some jobseekers praise AI for saving time and helping them craft more polished resumes.
Companies like Perplexity, which offers an AI-powered conversational search engine, provide curated guides for generating cover letters – complete with prompt suggestions, tool recommendations, and samples to follow.
This ends up painting quite a rosy picture when it comes to job hunting, now apparently augmented by a technology that’s basically guaranteed to fast-track applications and boost candidates’ chances.
On the flip side
Yet, the story quickly shifts when viewed from the perspective of those receiving such applications, with the telltale signs of AI-generated content acting instead as a red flag of sorts to employers.
A quick search on LinkedIn, keying in the search term “AI cover letter”, brings up numerous posts on the issue.
These posts – usually made by recruiters, human resources executives, and those in talent acquisition – contain gripes about how they are being inundated with AI-generated cover letters, which has even led to some immediately dismissing applications at the first sign of automation.
Death of the cover letter?
Common complaints from those making such posts reveal a core issue: while AI is powerful and more than capable of generating cover letters that appear to be well-written, they can also come off as generic and impersonal.
This becomes a larger issue when many applicants rely on the same tools. One LinkedIn user shared that out of the 50 cover letters he had received, 33 of them were identical, featuring the same bolded keywords, bullet points, and phrasing.
Despite having the power of AI at their fingertips, which promised them callbacks and eventual job interviews, applicants instead wind up giving the impression of a lack of care.
This makes it difficult for applicants to stand out, as their AI-generated submissions often lack authenticity and fail to properly convey who they are as candidates, according to hiring managers on LinkedIn.
Some on the platform even claim they can easily spot when a cover letter has been written entirely by AI. Another recruiter wrote that the advent of AI changed his stance on cover letters. Where before he considered them as “dead”, archaic, and obsolete, he now reads them to assess how well an applicant conveys their identity and get an idea if they are a good fit for a specific role.
In what comes off like an ironic twist to the story, even AI firms seem to be eschewing candidates who use the technology for their applications.
Such is the case with Anthropic – the startup responsible for AI assistant and chatbot Claude – which requires that AI not be used during the job application process.
“While we encourage people to use AI systems during their role to help them work faster and more effectively, please do not use AI assistants during the application process,” the company’s AI policy states on a job listing.
“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 policy exists in parallel to Anthropic’s Claude being marketed as a business solution, with the company’s website positioning it as a powerful tool for the workplace that has already found use in numerous companies.
This leaves job applicants faced with a tough question: if the very companies that create AI tools do not want candidates to use them when applying for a position with them, will other employers be more accepting?
Couple this with findings from a 2024 survey conducted by CV Genius, a UK-based job-seeking resources platform, which found that 80% of hiring managers view AI-generated applications – for both cover letters and resumes – negatively.
The survey, which polled 625 hiring managers, also found that 74% believed that they would be capable of identifying a cover letter created solely using AI.
It can even serve as a complete deal-breaker for landing the job, with 57% of hiring managers going so far as to indicate that they would be either less likely to hire or just throw out an application that seemed AI-generated.
Further muddying the water is LinkedIn’s announcement in early February that it is currently testing an AI tool for jobseekers that will essentially augment the platform’s search feature in hopes of finding relevant job openings that would have otherwise gone undiscovered.
LinkedIn also has an AI-powered writing assistant offered to premium subscribers meant to enhance user profiles, all in all making for a confusing landscape for those on the hunt for a new job.
In light of all this information, perhaps the most relevant question is: can jobseekers find a way forward that leverages AI’s advantages without resorting to overreliance on the technology?
Unlock 30% Savings on Ad-Free Access Now!
