A new study from the office supplies retailer, TonerGiant, has revealed 36% of UK jobseekers would use AI to create their CV [resumé] and covering letter for job applications, with 24% saying they would not amend any mistakes made by the AI’s authorship.
The figures highlight the blurred lines between generative AI technology and personal, ethical responsibility on the applicants’ side of the negotiation. The study surveyed 1,000 adults of working age in the UK.
The trend of AI-generated (or at least, AI-aided) job applications is led by younger generations and those living in urban areas. The research discovered a regional divide in attitudes to AI, with half of respondents in the West Midlands reporting that they would use AI to produce their CV, whereas jobseekers use AI in the South West in only 23% of cases.
According to the findings, men are more likely to use AI than women, with 41% saying they would at least consider it, compared to 32% of women.
Respondents in Yorkshire, Northern Ireland, and the Humberside regions were most likely to send AI-generated CVs and cover letters without correcting any AI-made errors, raising questions over the possible impact false information may have on the integrity of recruitment practices. On the other hand, regions like Wales and the South East showed the most attention to detail, with applicants in those regions being more likely to correct inaccuracies.
Another research paper states that AI is used in over half of UK job applications, despite many companies and organisations stipulating that candidates should not use the technology to apply for open positions. In an act of naive and uninhibited irony, the AI giant Anthropic has included the following in documentation given to job applicants:
“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.”
TonerGiant found AI is also used to construct messages to managers to request pay rises and even write letters of resignation. AI prompts seem to be a favoured source in these emotionally-charged situations, with around 25% of workers surveyed said they would consider using AI to pen either.
Employers and jobseekers use AI
AI technology has found some use on the other side of the equation among HR departments, particularly in helping ‘streamline’ applications for open roles. A blog post from financial software giant Sage’s website offers advice to HR professionals where “we explore how AI-powered tools are revolutionising candidate screening,” as “traditional methods of sifting through hundreds of CVs can be both time-consuming and resource-intensive, often leaving little room for the strategic side of recruitment.” Sage does not explain what the strategic side of recruiting people might be.
Recruitment agencies have also been quick to deploy AI. A whitepaper availble on medium.com promises to “[showcase] how AI-powered automation can address […] challenges by reducing manual work by over 50 hours weekly, saving $1,500+ weekly, and enabling agencies to handle 10x more candidate volume with ease.”
Meanwhile, jobseekers with a technological tendency and a basic facility in their native tongue will have noticed the rise in the number of vacancies for ‘prompt engineers’ a group of new-generation professionals who have learned the skills necessary to extract sensible answers from AI. In some instances, prompt engineers are employed to help teach AI systems the types of output required by human content creators so that an organisation can be assured of a consistently fourth-rate, albeit very cheap, source of material to publish (once the engineers’ contracts reach their end).
The TonerGiant research raises concerns and questions about the trust, credibility, and authenticity expected in the professional communications of job applicants. Those looking for jobs are expected to exhibit moral qualities they will have to abandon should they be offered positions in ‘AI-first’ companies.
