Advice for Employers and Recruiters
Determining authenticity when CVs / resumes all look the same and you get 1,000+ of them
Employers the world over, especially those who receive the bulk of their job application online, are complaining. About what? Well, a number of things, but one they complain about the most is new: far too many job applications that have little to differentiate them from others. Some refer to these as resumes, others as CVs, so let’s break that difference down first before we get into the substance of the issue.
The distinction between a CV and a resume usually comes down to three things: length, purpose, and geography. While people often use the terms interchangeably in casual conversation, they serve very different roles in a professional context.
The Breakdown
| Feature | Resume | Curriculum Vitae (CV) |
| Length | Short (1–2 pages) | Long (no limit; can be 10+ pages) |
| Focus | Skills, achievements, and work history | Full academic and professional pedigree |
| Flexibility | Highly customizable for each job | Static; updated as new items are achieved |
| Common Use | Private sector/corporate jobs | Academia, research, and medicine |
The Resume: The “Elevator Pitch”
A resume is a highly curated document designed to make you stand out for a specific role. Because recruiters spend only seconds scanning each application, a resume focuses on the “greatest hits” of your career. It is a competency-based document: you summarize your skills and experiences to prove you are a fit for a specific job description. If a detail doesn’t help you get this job, you leave it off.
The CV: The “Comprehensive History”
Curriculum Vitae is Latin for “course of life.” Unlike a resume, a CV is meant to be a living document that records every professional and academic milestone you’ve ever reached. It is credentials-based, listing everything from teaching experience and publications to grants, fellowships, and awards. In the U.S., you’ll almost exclusively use a CV if you are applying for a position in a university, a laboratory, or a specialized medical field.
A Note on Geography
It’s important to know where you are applying, as the definitions change globally:
- North America: The distinction above holds true.
- UK, Ireland, and New Zealand: The term “CV” is used for everything. If you apply for a retail job, you send a “CV,” but it’s actually formatted like what Americans call a resume.
- Australia and South Africa: The terms are often used interchangeably for a short, resume-style document.
Make sense? Good. Okay, let’s move onto the substance of the question: too many applications that look too much alike. There are a number of causes, and also a number of solutions.
Let’s be honest: the “Apply” button has become a little too easy to click. In an era where a single job posting can trigger a landslide of 1,000+ resumes overnight, the primary challenge for recruiters has shifted. It’s no longer just about finding the right talent; it’s about figuring out which candidates actually exist in the way their PDF claims they do. When you’re staring down a digital mountain of applications, the polished formatting starts to blur, and the nagging question shifts from “Is this person a good fit?” to “Is this person even real?”
The rise of hyper-optimized resumes—and, frankly, the temptation for candidates to lean on aggressive “embellishment” tools—means that what lands in your inbox is often more of a marketing brochure than a factual history. Identifying authenticity at scale requires a move away from traditional keyword scanning and toward a more skeptical, pattern-based approach. To protect your time and your hiring integrity, you need a framework to quickly separate the genuine professionals from the high-volume noise before they ever reach the interview stage.
To provide employers with some solutions, we reached out to 38 hiring experts for their recommendations about how to authenticate and even just differentiate between applications from 1,000 graduates, when all of them have used large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini to polish their CVs or resumes:
——————————————-
The #1 way to screen 1,000+ grads without increasing time to hire is automated one-way AI voice interviews. Candidates complete the interview on their own schedule, and the AI scores and ranks each candidate then delivers a shortlist straight to the hiring team.
So instead of conducting 1,000+ first-round interviews, the recruiter can review the top candidates the AI has shortlisted, and watch the interview recordings to confirm. The ROI is huge – as recruiters typically spend 10 to 30 hours per week just on first-round screening calls. And because candidates have to talk naturally on recorded video, it solves the AI polish problem that is found on resumes and cover letters. It’s much harder to fake your way through a spoken scenario than a written application. Using AI interviews for first-round screens can reduce time-to-hire by up to 40%.
Matthew Stewart, Founder & CEO, TalentSprout
——————————————-
Rarely does a polished CV leave a good indication of what someone is actually capable of.We struggled to get generic applications until we asked for a fresh idea on a campaign. Immediately we could see potential. If you have a mass of 1000 graduates, the best way to differentiate is a clear brief.
Just make it hard. That is the best way to tell who wants it.
Emma Sansom, Managing Director, Flamingo Marketing Strategies
——————————————-
At AthenaHQ we found the best results mixing automated checks with quick live prompts. You really need candidates to explain their answers in their own words. AI can fake a decent written response, but it struggles when you ask a sudden follow up. This is perfect for screening large grad classes because it cuts through the AI polish without slowing things down.
Andrew Yan, Co-Founder and CEO, AthenaHQ
——————————————-
Hiring a thousand grads taught me that AI polished resumes are basically noise. We switched to live group exercises to see what people could actually do. You spot the problem solvers immediately when they have to work with a team. It takes more work than screening CVs, but you hire better people. That makes the three year return much safer.
Stanislav Sadovnikov, Founder, Magnum Estate
——————————————-
Operating a creative agency using AI that means having detection tools to run over portfolios. It took a little time to get used to the validation software but it allowed us to validate a thousand grads and not lose the quality bar. We also added one way video interviews, it was great to actually see how someone sounds and it was a time saver & integrity booster.
James Rigby, Director, Design Cloud
——————————————-
In my time running a job that is within the bounds of regulation I have seen the tests used by the test companies often rather than correctly being suited. We changed our hiring process from using the screening software to present candidates with real scenarios. We are able to determine quickly who was truly thinking and learning rather than those that were simply entering their prompts into chatGPT.
If you’d like to see who someone is, program them with a task they can’t ignore, and see how they react. It saves a lot of time.
Lisa Clark, Director, Bell Fire and Security
——————————————-
Automation helps with volume, but you still need a person involved. AI handles the basics, but a timed case study is the only way to see if someone can solve problems. We used video questions once and it saved time while showing us who people were. If you need to screen a thousand grads, let the bots handle the paperwork and give candidates quick tasks to see how they think.
Cyrus Partow, CEO, ShipTheDeal
——————————————-
Why not add a ten minute live video call for the first round. When we played around with this with our grads, talking to people really broke through the AI sheen that writing alone will acquire. Don’t just trust the automated tests.
That short human step allowed us to keep staff for three years without dragging out the hiring.
Andrew Gazdecki, CEO, Acquire.com
——————————————-
The problem with AI polish is that everyone starts sounding identical. We see this constantly with templates. To fix it, we skip the fancy resumes and just do quick phone screens or small skills tests. It saves time later. If you need to hire a thousand grads, ask for a short video or a specific task. You will spot the actual talent pretty fast once they can’t hide behind a chatbot.
Sean Chaudhary, Founder, AlchemyLeads
——————————————-
When reviewing 1000+ graduates, you can be tempted to leverage AI as a first-pass filter to eliminate applications that have been polished by AI; however, this seldom results in success. Instead, use AI to identify patterns in tone and structure and trigger a requirement for a live video-based assessment for selected candidates in each cohort. By adopting this human-in-the-loop method, you ensure that the person who wrote the CV is also the one who answers the questions.
By choosing to trade-off authenticity and speed, you will quickly erode your return on investment with every hire. When we develop hiring programmes for large clients, we look at data on retention after 3 years of employment, rather than just simply looking at the velocity of the hire. Authentic candidates, who are given the opportunity to exhibit their real-world problem-solving skills in a live environment consistently outperform those who make it past the first filter using generic AI-generated content.
The best protection against AI-generated applications is not a more efficient filtering mechanism but instead a more thorough assessment design. You need to change the mindset from filtering based on volume to conducting assessments that have a high degree of fidelity and interactivity. Doing so protects your organisation’s brand while keeping the time needed to fill a vacant position reasonable.
When hiring at scale, it is important to be mindful of both preserving your company’s culture and filling the positions available in your company. So when you automate the front of your process, your aim should be to identify appropriate candidates, rather than to simply speedily clear the queue behind you. Being anchored in human-centric assessments will provide your organisation with better long term outcomes than if you did not anchor yourself in human-centric assessments.
Pratik Singh Raguwanshi, Manager, Digital Experience, LiveHelpIndia
——————————————-
You really get a better sense of people just by talking to them. We ran some group interviews for a local project once and noticed candidates dropped the act when they had to interact with peers. You just don’t see that on a resume. Big companies ought to try small video groups. They move fast and help you figure out who you’re actually dealing with without dragging out the hiring process.
Lawrence Irby, President, Bay Area House Buyer
——————————————-
I have screened thousands of applicants across Europe. Short video responses on real scenarios quickly separate people who are actually interested from those just relying on AI. We use automated skill checks and mini case studies to handle volume without slowing things down. If you need to assess over 1,000 grads, combining tech screening with unscripted tasks is the best approach.
Sandro Kratz, Founder, Tutorbase
——————————————-
If an organisation plans to hire 1,000+ grads, they are sure to increase their exposure to ‘AI polish’ when they are stuck using traditional cover letters to screen for authenticity whilst increasing time to hire. Employers need to move from written narratives to timed, scenario-based financial or logic assessments to identify genuine critical thinkers. AI is great at writing essays, but it struggles to solve live multi-variable problems under time pressure. Use asynchronous, gamified assessments at the top of the funnel to remove constructed personas and you will identify people with analytical dexterity. It’s critical risk management. If you hire based on AI-produced perfection, your attrition will be through the roof as reality bites and your long-term returns will suffer. A positive 3-Year ROI is contingent on onboarding people with authentic critical thinking. By testing raw capability rather than written presentation, you protect your recruitment budget and the 3-Year ROI of your graduate programme.
Brian Chasin, CFO & Co-Founder, SOBA New Jersey
——————————————-
To limit “AI polish” when screening 1,000+ grads, an organisation needs to change the medium of the application. Written documents are easily faked by generative tech. Replace the cover letter with asynchronous video screening using targeted prompts, giving candidates zero prep time and 2 minutes to record a response. You are not looking for a flawless public-speaking performance; you are looking for digital fluency and the competence to express a creative thought quickly. This hardly takes longer to review than a CV, so your time-to-hire is not impacted. Authenticity is apparent when you observe a candidate thinking on their feet. Capturing creative thought is the only way to ensure a massive 3-Year ROI on your large volume of early-career recruitment.
Darryl Stevens, CEO & Founder, Digitech Web Design
——————————————-
The easiest way to break through “AI polish” is to look at how people work with others (not how people write). Any organisation can deploy automated, online group assessment centres. Place candidates into virtual groups of five and give them a difficult, collaborative puzzle to solve over twenty minutes, then identify those who naturally form community and foster collaboration. No-one achieves a positive 3-Year ROI by hiring loners with perfect resumes – they achieve a positive 3-Year ROI by hiring cohesive cohorts that support each other. By seeing organic social dynamics in real-time, you get a workforce that stays engaged and, long-term, has dramatically low turnover.
James Mikhail, Founder, Ikon Recovery
——————————————-
While assessing the capabilities of well over 1,000 candidates from grad programs, an organisation cannot permit the “AI polish” of a candidate to hide true operational capabilities. The cure is to use an auto-generated “in-basket” exercise to evaluate applicants. Rather than have applicants explain their expertise, utilise a thirty-minute “virtually constructed” digital work environment whereby they must manage a full e-mail inbox, competing priorities, and disparate raw data sets. Have them identify how they will organise and prioritise their work under time constraints. While generative artificial intelligence can create a perfect mission statement, it cannot “manage” a chaotic daily workload in real time. In addition, this auto-generated assessment requires zero manual grading at the outset, thereby protecting your time-to-hire metrics. Ultimately, by ensuring an applicant is able to meet operational compliance on the first day of employment, you greatly enhance the organisation’s ability to produce strong three-year returns on investment (ROI) from your workforce. By using evidence of practical, results-oriented implementation instead of evidence of theoretical polish, you develop a strong, highly skilled workforce; you will ensure your organisation’s most significant recruitment programme provides genuine, measurable value over the long haul.
James Scribner, Co-Founder, The Freedom Center
——————————————-
To truly eliminate “AI polish” when screening 1,000+ grads, an organisation would need to shift away from traditional written prompts and instead focus on core competency behavioural mapping. AI creates flawless answers to regular interview questions. To find the authentic candidate without extending time-to-hire, one must deploy timed, situational judgement tests (SJTs) at the top of the funnel. In these, tricky, highly specific workplace dilemmas offer more than one “correct” response, thus demanding that candidates weigh competing priorities and identify their true philosophies. These provide automated alignment of the cohort to your corporate values. A solid 3-Year ROI is founded upon this. If you hire a manufactured persona, the money you spend on education and upskilling is wasted. With behavioural mapping, you know you are hiring authentic talent ready to grow your institution over 3 years.
Joel Butterly, CEO & Founder, InGenius Prep
——————————————-
When analysing 1,000+ grads across UK/EU, “AI polish” threatens your predictive modelling. As an organisation, you need to counteract this by relying on unprompted data interaction rather than polished prose. Instead of accepting a standard application form, demand that applicants undertake a quick data-sorting task on a digital platform, then monitor the decision & number of keystrokes/decision speed/navigational logic. AI cannot replicate the cognitive footprints of candidates in action digesting complex information in real time. This can be automated indefinitely – keeping time-to-hire ultra-fast. Calculating a 3-year plus positive ROI requires knowledge of the exact candidates that you hired. In all probability, if you are hiring someone based on “AI produced CVs”, your long-term wage arbitrage strategies will fail catastrophically due to high attrition. By screening for real analytical velocity, you protect your capital investments and ensure your massive grad programme ends up providing substantial financial return.
Jonathan Orze, CFO, InGenius Prep
——————————————-
To screen 1,000+ grads past “AI polish”, an organization must screen for behavioral nuance and not technical excellence. GenAI is terrible at greyscale. To achieve fast speed-to-hire, replace traditional question-response screening using AI with Video-Based Situational Assessments of high-pressure, high-complexity leadership dilemmas where every perceived ‘option’ will inevitably ‘have a bad outcome’. Ask candidates to record a brief audio or video response while explaining the ‘compromise’. Look for human reasoning, empathy, and the ability to solve problems where there’s no perfect answer. An AI-using candidate would give a polished, over-perfect answer, devoid of humanity. High 3-Year ROI will only happen by investing in resilient future leaders. Screening for authentic eq + Pragmatic decision-making ensures your program produces a durable, capable leadership pipeline.
Joshua Zeises, CEO & CMO, Paramount Wellness Retreat
——————————————-
AI polish can bury a candidate’s potential when an organisation has to screen 1,000+ grads. To see true authenticity without delaying time-to-hire, use unscripted, audio-only Screening Prompts. Eliminate AI bias and text polish: give candidates 1 minute to read a prompt, then record a 2-minute voice note. You can assess communication and resilience through tone, pacing, and genuine enthusiasm. You can’t fake passion on an impromptu voice recording. This process screens applications faster than reading lengthy cover letters. Get a massive 3-year ROI by hiring authentic, passion-driven advocates for your brand. Focus on genuine communication, and your graduate program will secure on-brand, passionate talent who will last.
Ryan Hetrick, Co-founder of Epiphany Wellness, Epiphany Wellness
——————————————-
AI polish can be circumvented when an organisation is hiring 1,000+ grads by using hyper-localised, context-heavy screening scenarios. AI relies on broad, generic business principles but fails when confronted with highly contextualised (regional) issues. Without increasing your time-to-hire, create brief, timed assessments that require a candidate to problem-solve within a locally relevant circumstance: get them to solve a supply chain issue unique to their target UK or EU market. Ask them to solve a cultural business issue particular to that country. An authentic candidate will think critically about the context of the situation, while AI will respond generically. If you want to protect a 3-Year ROI, hire people capable of working within your context, and assess for contextual awareness rather than generic business aptitude.
Sean Smith, Founder & CEO, Alpas Wellness
——————————————-
Fighting the “AI polish” when onboarding 1,000+ grads requires an organisation to screen for humility and a degree of flexibility (adaptability). The fact that neither of these traits can be replicated by artificial intelligence means you have to screen for them in order to survive the competition. To do so without increasing time-to-hire, simply use automated interactive chat simulations in the earliest stages of the application process. Program the simulation to randomly vary the instructions given to the candidate or to simply push back on the candidate’s first answer. Then, score how the candidate reacts to the pivot. Do they pivot gracefully and come up with a plausible solution, or do they stiffen? This interaction produces an amazing read on the real person in question. A successful graduate programme is predicated on finding client-facing, adaptable professionals. If you hire robotic versions of those “AI polished” humans, your 3-Year ROI will tank because of the cultural mismatch. Screen for authentic human flexibility to ensure a workforce that is empathetic, motivated, and capable of long-term institutional growth.
Tzvi Heber, CEO & Counselor, Ascendant New York
——————————————-
When an organisation must hire 1000s of grads, “AI polish” sets up a false expectation of competency. To find authentic talent without slowing your time to hire, you must demand proof of work and not polished paper. Demand a bullet-point rough draft from your applicants using a timed 15-minute micro-assignment. Ask them to review a flawed document, mark the errors, then provide an action plan in bullet points. You want to see the blueprints, not the AI essay. It naturally winnows out candidates that are over-relying on generative tools. Laying the foundation is the only way to ensure a 3-Year ROI; without it, you have nothing. Any attempt to shortcut a strong foundation with the illusion of AI competence will fail, guaranteed. Any program investing in raw proof of problem-solving skills secures a steady pipeline of professionals who build sustainable long-term success.
Carl Dugan, CEO & Founder, Viking Roofing
——————————————-
I would recommend to any organisation that is screening 1,000+ grads to cease believing polished applications and begin testing to be specific instead. Having assessed student writing over the years at the University of Zurich and Yale, I can inform you that AI-polished writing has a fingerprint. All the sentences end at the same length, the rhythm is never interrupted and it is not personal. It is competent but tells us nothing about the person.
Last semester I read two student submissions one right after the other that were almost exactly the same in structure and tone even though they were on entirely different subjects. Both were AI-polished. It was not the vocabulary that was given away. It was the nothingness of that which only that person could have written.
This is why I suggest to include a 15-20 minutes timed writing activity in an existing screening phase. Compare it with the polished application. When the voice does not match, it was not their application. This is less than two minutes per candidate and does not increase with additional headcount. In the case of programmes recruiting at volume, a 10 percent mis-hire rate based on masked capabilities results in severe 3-year attrition expenses. Two additional minutes of upfront safeguard that whole investment.
Prof. Dr. David Ratmoko, Owner and Director, Metro Models
——————————————-
Based on my experience building a platform for matching candidates with jobs, I would advise adopting behavioral interviews and solving realistic problems, which will allow you to strip down the AI-enhanced language of 1,000+ candidates. The trick lies in designing rubrics that allow you to evaluate their reasoning ability rather than the polished presentation—this will enable you to retain your current time to hire while dramatically enhancing your 3-year retention rate of return on investment by recruiting critical thinkers.
Scott Brown, Founder, Focus Group Placement
——————————————-
Hiring 1,000 grads is crazy right now because AI does the applications. When I was hiring volunteers I would give applicants something quick and specific to do. It would tell you who shows up and who only has a good resume.
Insert an easy challenge in the screening stage. It takes no additional time; you’ll find real candidates much faster.
Paul Jameson, Founder & Executive Chairman, Aura Funerals
——————————————-
Generally speaking, the first filter should shift from polished applications to proof of thinking. AI can improve wording, but it cannot easily show judgement under time pressure. Each candidate can complete the same short work sample related to the role within 20 minutes. A clear scoring rubric helps create a more reliable signal than a highly edited CV.
For hiring across the EU and UK, the process should stay fair, simple, and consistent in every country. Two reviewers can assess borderline cases to reduce bias and improve decisions. Scores can then be compared with job performance over a three year period. This approach helps reduce hiring mistakes, saves time, and highlights candidates with strong thinking skills.
Christopher Pappas, Founder, eLearning Industry Inc
——————————————-
To break this vicious cycle of low-quality applicants created by “polished” resumes when evaluating over 1,000 new hires, you should move away from static evaluation of resumes/CVs and focus on assessing real-time cognitive abilities. The number of applications received for job openings in the UK has reached 140 per opening. The higher volume of applicants has driven overall applicant quality down. Today, 42% of graduate applicants admit to having received help with their applications.
For a high-impact three-year plan, I would suggest using proctored, live case study sprints during your hiring program. While 49% of employers currently allow assistance with application materials, 61% of graduates reported relying on help for their cover letter and resume.
Requiring candidates to solve problems in real time lets you see their true abilities and determination. A skills-based approach is proven to be five times more predictive of future performance than previous methods and can save employers up to 19% in hiring costs.
Gary Gray, CEO, CouponChief.com
——————————————-
I haven’t done big grad hiring in the UK or EU. But resumes are hard to read now that everyone uses AI to polish them. You don’t see the real person. In my field, I figure out who someone is by asking specific follow-ups or giving quick writing tasks. Even with 1,000 applicants, adding a short, timed problem-solving exercise online shows how someone thinks. It works without dragging out the hiring process.
Jae Francis Lee, Principal Attorney, Francis Law Center
——————————————-
When considering more than 1,000 resumes for new graduates, the AI-generated versions mask their actual capabilities. One of the quickest ways to test is by asking the candidate to walk you through the solution to a problem. Rather than generalizations, try asking, “Tell me how you solved a specific problem. What was the problem? What did you do? Why didn’t it work?” True candidates will be very detailed and hesitant to share, while those relying on an AI-generated response will sound well-prepared but will give vague responses. Asking one qualifying question can eliminate around 30% of ineligible candidates and save you time in recruiting interviews. Since you’re hiring someone capable of performing their job, your 3-year return on investment increases exponentially.
Saini Rhodes, Real Estate Expert, Clever Offers
——————————————-
The reason AI polish exists in resumes and interviews is because of anxiety; candidates are presenting a perfect image of themselves.
The goal of screening graduates for firms is to see behind the mask and identify how much emotional grit a candidate has.
As long as you can ensure your talent program, you need to put more emphasis on getting mentally clear than you do on getting the “right” answers.
Once you lose the fear of judgment, authenticity will show up.
Creating an environment for managers where the focus is on creating psychologically safe environments allows personalities to be able to exist.
Ensuring there is no performance anxiety in the process of interviewing creates a real talent pipeline.
Dr. Nir Baharav, OCD/Anxiety Specialist, Psychologist, Dr. Nir Baharav
——————————————-
For screening 1,000-plus graduates, interviews are inefficient and overlook important qualities. This is what actually works: Instead of conducting lengthy interviews, conduct quick 20-minute tasks that reflect actual performance. Present an unorganised data set or a scheduling issue from your firm and ask candidates to solve it. Good candidates will pose pertinent questions, make balanced trade-offs, and create something you can evaluate. Fake candidates find it challenging because they can’t explain their reasoning under scrutiny.
I have personally witnessed such changes, reducing hiring time by 40 to 50 per cent and increasing quality. You will even be able to identify fake candidates at the very outset. When combined with asynchronous testing methods such as video responses, peer reviews, and performance evaluations, these methods let you screen 1,000-plus graduates without being buried in interviews. The ROI becomes apparent within the first year, as there will be no costly hiring mistakes and quicker onboarding.
Sheraz Ali, Founder & CEO, HARO Links Builder
——————————————-
I work in real estate, not corporate recruiting, so take this with a grain of salt. But relying on AI-written applications makes it hard to know who someone actually is. In my business, face-to-face conversations reveal the real person. Why not ask for short video pitches? Even with a thousand applicants, watching a quick clip helps you spot the right people faster than reading a generic resume.
Richard Morrison, Founder, Richard Morrison Vancouver Homes
——————————————-
One of largest hurdles we’re facing in 2026 is what I’d call “AI polish,” candidates who look amazing on paper but cannot demonstrate any form of real understanding or application in practice. This creates an issue, especially when hiring at scale (1,000+ grads), and traditional ways of checking CVs do not reflect true abilities anymore.
From what we’re seeing in the market, including through our work at Uptalen supporting EU and UK organisations, the solution is not to add more steps to the hiring process, which simply leads to a longer time frame for hiring and less ROI from the hires made; in reality, organisations will need to redesign the way they verify authenticity of candidates in a timely manner.
The best change would be transitioning from using CVs as a means to filter candidates to structured, skills-based pre-screening methods (using tests) early on in the hiring process. Some examples include:
- instead of take-home assignments, utilise short problems that don’t require a lot of time
- use live-scene question types (ask candidate to demonstrate how their answer would work)
- implement realistic simulations in place of theoretical questions.
Ultimately, these methodologies will make it virtually impossible for a candidate to produce an answer generated by AI instead, organisations will be able to identify candidates who possess an advantageous level of capacity.
Consistency is another key consideration. Many organisations hiring across multiple EU markets will use local interview styles that lead to varying levels of evaluation and make it more difficult for hiring managers to identify “AI polish.” By standardising the initial screening process across regions, organisations can improve evaluation quality and speed.
Organisations should also measure candidate success over a 3-year time frame, rather than simply looking at the quality of the initial hire. Candidates who demonstrate an ability to genuinely solve problems and adapt to new environments tend to ramp up more quickly, require less supervision, and show much greater retention rates, which all contribute to better long-term ROI.
Mr Tiberiu Trandaburu, CEO & Founder, Uptalen
——————————————-
Every year during the hiring season, GPTZero recognizes the same trends. AI does not provide applicants that are ‘fake.’ It provides applicants that all appear identical. All have proper grammar, have no depth, have not made any real choices.
The solution is not to develop better detection methods, rather it is to develop better prompts. Stop requesting cover letters. Request evidence of work. Present actual scenarios where candidates must determine the proper approach to proceed: “I have a spreadsheet that I need to clean – provide me with your first three steps.” or “Write a one page policy memo providing me with two options and recommendations.”
This approach can be used at scale, keeps time-to-hire consistent, and improves the quality of the signal. After the course of three years with 1,000 new graduates, ROI is very high. You’ll lower your amount of poor hires. You’ll lower the amount of time that interviewers become fatigued and you’ll hire people that are able to think critically.
Mr Edward Tian, Founder/CEO, GPTZero
——————————————-
I learned more watching new designers tackle quick showroom problems than I ever did from their portfolios. Giving someone a small task on the spot shows who actually cares. Employers with thousands of applicants could do the same. Just throw a specific scenario at them and see how they react. It is faster than reading applications and you get a much better sense of who they are.
Richard Skeoch, Company Director, Hyperion Tiles
——————————————-
One simple approach to flagging AI-edited applications is to track response consistency across multiple touchpoints rather than a single written submission. Mass hiring for roles with 1,000+ graduating class sizes often means utilizing one-size-fits-all application screens that are fully editable by AI platforms. Consistency is lost when candidates are asked to flow through several short-form written or video responses. A sample volume hiring flow had applicants complete three short-form responses over a 5-day period, each pertaining to similar topics. Approximately 28% of applicants had drastic shifts in tone, verbosity, and readability between the set of responses, which indicated abnormalities from where they may have used AI to edit their original response.
Tracking consistency allowed recruiters to review candidates faster and with better results. On average, recruiters spent 6 minutes per candidate skimming for inconsistencies across their responses vs. 12 minutes deeply analyzing long-form responses. This equated to roughly 400 hours of total screening time saved over a 3 Year hiring period for large applicant pools. Faster shortlist times and better candidate-to-job fit were realized without creating additional friction in the hiring process.
Shahid Shahmiri, Founder and CEO, Marketing Lad
——————————————-
In today’s market, there are over 1,000 graduating students available to fill Fortune 1,000 jobs.
The problem is, most organisations can’t find these students because they are so busy looking for candidates with AI-polished resumes, rather than those with actual “value.”
Organisations using automation tools to sort through resumes by keywords instead of character will typically see less ROI when searching for the right candidate.
At MKB Media Solutions, we educate our client base that the ultimate signifier of whether a job applicant is authentic or not is their digital footprint.
Therefore, I recommend that hiring managers seek out graduates who have created some form of “public presence”, such as contributors to publishing outlets.
This ensures that you hire individuals with the ability to create a high-value outcome for your organisation.
Matt Baharav, Founder and CEO, MKB Media Solutions
