The Stupidest Hiring Rule Right Now: Banning AI in Applications

I was laid off a couple of months ago, which means I’ve been spending all my time focusing on finding a new job, including a lot of time writing, rewriting, and refining my resume.

As part of this process, I utilize AI, such as grammar checkers and writing suggestions, to enhance clarity and provide a second opinion on my wording.

All of the details are accurate and a genuine reflection of the work I’ve done.  

There is nothing false in my resume.  I wrote it myself.

However, to present myself as well as possible, I have utilized AI to refine my resume.  I do the same when I write cover letters.  I write the letter, then use AI to present myself in the best light possible.

Before I get too far into my rant, I want to preface this by saying that I appreciate companies using AI to enhance customer support.  My dad was a tech enthusiast, a Geek-Guy as he called himself, and I grew up discussing the possibilities of AI with him, exploring all the things we could accomplish with it.

Unfortunately, we did not really discuss the negative side of AI, which has led to my frustration today.

I think it’s great that companies are using Application Tracking Systems (ATS) to ensure a resume aligns with the position they’re trying to fill.  

However, as a leader who has been part of the hiring process, including reviewing applicants and conducting interviews, I understand how difficult it can be to find the right person to join your team.  That’s why I find the modern company’s knee-jerk reaction to AI so baffling.

I ran across an opening today that had the following disclaimer:

To maintain the integrity and authenticity of our hiring process, we kindly request that all candidates refrain from using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to generate, assist with, or enhance any part of their application materials (including resumes, cover letters, written and verbal responses, and images) or during any stage of the interview process. We value genuine, original work that reflects your personal experience, skills, and communication style. As part of our commitment to a fair and transparent evaluation process, please be advised that we may use technology to detect AI-generated content submitted by candidates. Candidates found to have used AI assistance in violation of this policy may be disqualified from consideration.

Here are my main issues with this policy:

Hypocrisy

As part of our commitment to a fair and transparent evaluation process, please be advised that we may use technology to detect AI-generated content submitted by candidates.

Also, I’m writing this post out in Grammarly before posting it.  They have an AI detector built in, and despite not having run this through any of the grammar checks or other tools yet, it indicates that there’s a possibility that 26% of this text is AI-generated.  

I’m assuming it’s referencing the disclaimer I quoted from the job posting.  So they used AI to write their job posting/disclaimer, but I can’t even use AI to improve my resume…

Honestly, this is probably just my frustration talking here, because they do tell us that they’ll be using it to be “fair and transparent.”  Still.  It irks me.

Not only that, the company is almost certainly relying on an ATS—an AI/algorithm-driven tool—to screen, rank, and discard resumes.

The company is already using AI to control and automate their side of the process, yet they demand a human-only effort and struggle from the applicant.

This isn’t really about authenticity; it’s about employers controlling the process and defining ‘effort’ in arbitrary ways that disadvantage capable candidates who use modern tools.

Since this point has referenced one company I’ve come across so far, let’s take another step back and look at another hypocritical issue:

Modern jobs require AI proficiency. Banning AI discourages candidates with relevant skills.  

Companies like this one already use AI. Preventing its use in applications discourages candidates who have mastered a critical modern tool.

If AI skills are essential, why penalize applicants for demonstrating them?

False Positives

Since, despite my frustration, I still need a job, I decided to apply for this position anyway.  For safety’s sake, I ran my resume through an AI Detector.  And guess what?  It comes back saying there’s an 85% chance my resume is AI.  

It offered to provide me with feedback on why it may be considered AI, which I accepted.  The reason it thinks it might be AI?  

However, the content lacks personal anecdotes, a unique voice, or emotional depth, which are common in human-written personal narratives. The use of industry-specific jargon and a formulaic structure suggests a generic approach often associated with AI-generated content. Additionally, the text does not include any personal insights or experiences that would indicate a human touch, leading to the conclusion that it is likely AI-generated.

It’s a resume!  We’re not supposed to use “I statements” or include “anecdote,” personal or otherwise!  

So, if I submit my resume to this company without incorporating “I statements” and anecdotes, will it be automatically flagged?  

Here’s the real problem: AI detectors are built to check essays and stories, not resumes. So when they scan a resume, they’re looking for the same stuff they’d look for in a blog post. If you write your resume the way you’re supposed to—short, professional, using action verbs—it gets flagged as AI.

Basically, you get penalized for doing it right.

To me, this means I will be punished for submitting a professional resume that meets all the criteria expected of a resume.  Whereas someone who submits an unprofessional resume, one using “I statements” and stories, will be advanced to the next steps, even if they are less qualified than I am.

I have been working in tech for about 13 years.  I have been a people leader for over five years.  I am technically overqualified for the position listed.  

But I’m probably going to be rejected based on my resume without it even being reviewed by a human?  Because there’s a chance I used AI?

The Ghostwriter Loophole

While I can understand (kinda) that companies want to make sure the candidate doesn’t rely too heavily on AI to create their resumes and cover letters, there are other options candidates have that mean they don’t write their own resume and still don’t get caught in the AI trap:  Ghostwriters

There are numerous companies available that will not only write your resume for you, but they’ll write your cover letters, too.

While there are AI detectors, how are you supposed to detect if the resume was written by someone else entirely?

Isn’t receiving an AI-enhanced resume actually written by the candidate better than one that was written by someone else entirely?  

The future of AI holds numerous possibilities, and I am excited to see what unfolds. But we aren’t there yet. AI should be used with care and thoughtfulness.

Automatically rejecting applicants because AI has been detected in a resume is reckless and imprudent.

As someone who has successfully recruited, hired, trained, and promoted numerous excellent employees over the last decade plus without the use of AI, I can promise you this:

Banning AI in applications doesn’t safeguard the hiring process—it only ensures companies lose out on qualified, tech-savvy candidates who know how to leverage important tools.

_{Disclaimer: AI was used to suggest improvements, including grammatical corrections and helping to flesh out the issues I addressed. The Featured Image was AI-generated.}