“Did you use AI to write this?”
It’s becoming one of the most common questions in recruitment.
Across New Zealand, we’re seeing more employers ask candidates not to use AI when preparing CVs and cover letters. Some are going even further, explicitly requesting applications written entirely in the candidate’s own words. Meanwhile, platforms like SEEK and LinkedIn continue to encourage the use of AI as a tool to support job seekers.
So, who is right? Perhaps the more interesting question is whether we’re focusing on the wrong issue altogether.
The reality: AI is already here
Whether we like it or not, AI has become part of the modern job search.
Candidates are using it to improve grammar, tailor CVs, draft cover letters, identify keywords and prepare for interviews. In many cases, they’re doing exactly what employers have always encouraged them to do — presenting their experience in the clearest and most relevant way possible.
The debate is no longer about whether candidates are using AI. Most candidates already are.
Where employers are becoming uncomfortable
The concern isn’t necessarily the technology itself.
The concern arises when AI starts replacing the candidate’s own thinking, experience and voice. Recruiters and hiring managers are increasingly reporting applications that sound polished and impressive on paper but fall apart when explored further through screening calls or interviews.
We’ve all seen examples:
– Cover letters that could have been written for almost any role.
– CVs filled with corporate jargon but short on substance.
– Achievements that sound highly strategic but are difficult to explain when questioned.
– Candidates who struggle to provide examples that support what they’ve submitted.
The issue is not necessarily that AI was involved. The issue is whether the information remains authentic.
A shift in how employers are hiring
Interestingly, the employers who are most concerned about authenticity are not necessarily banning AI.
Instead, they’re changing how they assess candidates.
We’re seeing more organisations validate information much earlier in the recruitment process through screening calls, application questions, work samples, technical assessments, video responses and earlier reference checking.
In other words, the focus is shifting from reviewing information to validating it.
The question then becomes: Can the candidate demonstrate ownership of everything they submitted?
Four assumptions worth challenging
The current anti-AI sentiment is built on a few assumptions that deserve closer examination.
Not always. Some candidates provide all the underlying content and use AI simply to improve readability, structure or clarity. The experience is still theirs. The achievements are still theirs. The wording may just be more polished.
In some roles, communication skills are critical. In others, highly capable candidates may struggle to articulate their strengths in writing. AI can help bridge that gap without changing the underlying capability.
Perhaps. But often we’re identifying poor AI rather than AI itself. As the technology improves, distinguishing between a well-edited AI-assisted application and a well-written human-generated one becomes increasingly difficult.
There’s another perspective. …..
For candidates with dyslexia, English as a second language, neurodiverse thinking styles or strong technical expertise but less confidence in written communication, AI may function more as an accessibility tool than a shortcut.
The irony we’re all navigating
One of the more interesting tensions in recruitment today is that many organisations are using AI themselves.
AI is helping screen applications, schedule interviews, rank candidates and support applicant tracking systems. Yet there is growing concern when candidates use similar technology to prepare their applications.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t valid concerns.
But it does highlight that the conversation may need to be broader than simply whether AI should or shouldn’t be used.
The question that matters most
When we strip it all back, recruitment has always been about evidence. Our role is not to determine who used technology. Our role is to determine whether someone genuinely possesses the experience, capability, judgement and achievements they claim to have.
So perhaps the real question isn’t: “Did the candidate use AI?”
Instead, we should be asking: “Can the candidate demonstrate ownership of everything they submitted?”
Because ultimately, using AI is not the issue. Misrepresenting experience, capability or achievement is.
Candidates should be free to use modern tools responsibly, provided they are prepared to stand behind every claim they make. In that environment, authenticity becomes far more important than authorship.
Helen Dale | Recruitment Partner
Want to discuss how AI is changing recruitment, candidate assessment and hiring practices? Get in touch with the team at Everest People for a conversation about the tools, resources and activities to support authentic recruitment practices.