Is an 'AI war' complicating your job search?

Is an 'AI war' making your job hunt harder?

There are worries about the growing use of AI in hiring

I’ve lost count of how many people have told me they’ve sent off hundreds of job applications, only to be turned down again and again.

Many said it felt as though no human had even reviewed their applications.

There are many different kinds of recruitment tools. Some pair candidates with jobs, while others score and filter CVs. Employers use them to save time when sorting through applications, but concerns are mounting that these systems may be biased.

I want to understand how fair AI recruitment tools really are when they are being used to help shape our futures — and what happens after we click "apply".

Sheeraz Gulsher says there are "huge worries" about AI

People Like Us, a London-based non-profit, is working to raise awareness of people’s legal right to challenge automated decisions if they disagree with the result.

A Censuswide survey of 2,000 UK workers who had applied for at least one job in the past 24 months found that 75% did not know they had the right to challenge an automated rejection.

Sheeraz Gulsher, chief executive of People Like Us, is leading the Reject the Rejections campaign, which is urging employers to be more transparent and accountable in their use of AI and automated recruitment systems.

He calls the current climate an "AI war", with candidates "resorting to AI to bolster their applications" while "employers are dealing with huge amounts of applications".

Gulsher said: "We can't say for certain that every company is operating its automated or AI systems without bias. That's why we're calling for companies to audit these systems, publish the results and have them independently assessed.

"In our research, we found guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office, external stating that people subject to certain automated decisions have the right to request a human review. We're trying to remind people of that right, as many simply aren't aware of it."

The research also found that 70% of ethnically diverse jobseekers had changed or hidden details on their CVs, including their country of origin, religion or name, because they feared recruitment software or AI tools would reject them. That compares with 57% of white candidates.

Vivi says she needs feedback as a jobseeker

Business consultant Vivi, who lives in Lewisham, was made redundant earlier this year. She says she has applied for so many jobs that she has given up and launched her own company.

"There's one instance where applications closed on Friday and I got a reply on a Saturday morning basically saying that I should work on my skills and come back in six months. But it was so obvious that nobody had assessed my skills."

If she had known she could ask for a human review, she says she might have handled things differently.

"I would definitely go back and ask for a human to look at my application and if it is a 'no', that's fine, but feedback helps me as a jobseeker."

Hema was made redundant in June

Hema, 49, from Surrey, is an HR and talent professional who has worked internationally across several sectors.

She was made redundant in June and has since logged more than 100 job applications and recruitment opportunities.

"A lot of them have been automatically rejected within 24 to 36 hours."

She added: "I've always landed a job in 10 applications, so to be nearing 100 is completely out of this world."

Although she is "hesitant" about requesting a human review in case it harms her application, she believes "a human recruiter can see the fuller picture".

"If you've got an in-house recruitment team, they know the culture, they can see the type of language that you're using in your CV, in your cover letter, during a phone screen."

Of the 425 recruiters CV Library spoke to, about 90 said they used AI at the CV screening stage.

Alec Stanwell, director of marketing, believes there is a "perception gap".

"Candidates almost universally believe that employers are using AI to screen their CVs, filter them and to screen them as they go through the process and that is happening but nowhere near as much as candidates think it is.

"That perception gap is a problem because candidates are now writing their CVs, and applications, through the lens of 'an AI bot is going to be reviewing this rather than a human'.

He says this is an issue because recruiters are seeing CVs that all look the same because "they're all written by AI, or polished by AI".

He says this creates a "perfect storm" because AI is then more likely to be used to filter through a large volume of applications.

"We're going to end up with computers hiring computers, but we're actually in the world of hiring people."

In the four years to December 2022, Stanford researchers examined four million job applications handled by an AI hiring tool, external.

Some candidates were rejected from multiple roles more often than would have been expected if each employer had assessed them separately.

The analysis also suggested that black and Asian applicants were recommended for jobs at lower rates.

But the evidence is limited. The researchers looked at only one AI hiring tool, and other factors such as education and immigration status may also have influenced the results.

The hiring tool studied did not respond to our request for comment.

The people I have spoken to are not pointing to any one company in particular, but concerns about AI in recruitment are also being tested in court.

One company, Workday, is facing legal claims, external in the US, alleging that its tools discriminated against job applicants.

The case is still ongoing, but Workday denies the allegations and says its tools do not make hiring decisions.

More broadly, it says its tools "support rather than replace human judgement".

Barb Hyman's company grades candidates on text-based chat interviews

What makes this even more complicated is that AI hiring tools operate in different ways, and some do not screen CVs at all.

I spoke to one company that grades candidates through text-based chat interviews.

Barb Hyman, founder of Sapia AI, said: "We don't know anything about you from a demographic perspective and we don't know whether or not you were hired or not hired for a previous role. So I think you've really got to look at the nature of the AI and how it's built. Not all AI is the same.

"At least in the enterprise space, every company we speak to is very conscious of the EU AI Act, even if they don't see themselves as having to comply with that yet. And that requires a level of accountability."

She added: "No company ever built a high-performing culture by monitoring its people, and you won't build a fair hiring process by policing candidates either.

"Start by earning candidates' trust: tell them what you're measuring, how they'll be scored, and give them feedback. Fraud gets smaller when people trust the process."

Alec Samways says his company has seen "huge uptick" in applications, which "all look the same"

Alec Samways, chief executive of London-based Splendid Communications, says they normally receive three to four hundred applications for three places on their annual intern programme, but last year the number tripled.

"We saw a huge uptick in applications, but strangely, they all look the same. Our suspicion was candidates all of a sudden were using AI to make the applications themselves."

Samways used two different AI tools to help the company gauge how much of the content had been generated by AI, but they "produced such a variety of responses".

"We found we couldn't trust them and we had to literally sift through those, applications in a human way in the end.

"It's just clear that at this point we're not prepared to trust AI for this kind of decision-making."

An ICO spokesperson said AI and automation could "make recruitment quicker and more efficient" but "must not come at the expense of people's rights".

They said: "Employers should be upfront about when automated decision-making is being used, how it works and how it could affect someone's application.

"Bias can appear at different stages of building and using AI products, and we expect all organisations to take steps to identify and mitigate it."

A government spokesperson said that "while AI can help employers manage large volumes of applications and reduce administrative burdens, it is vital that recruitment processes remain fair, transparent and accessible".

They added: "Existing legal protections, including equality and data protection law, already apply to AI systems, and we will act where additional protections are needed."

There appears to be a genuine fear of the unknown, because we often do not know what happens at the other end once we click "apply".

But if AI is here to stay, how can we make sure it is fair?