AI or no?

Greg Wyatt • October 18, 2024

I often see discussions on the uses and perils of AI in a job search.

Now, before I get into my thoughts, let me comment on what AI is.

For a start the current term AI isn’t the AI I grew up waiting for- it’s not intelligent, it has no judgement or empathy.

It is sophisticated automation based on processing and reiterating information that’s already out there.

It’s called AI for simplicity, but truthfully this is mainly marketing-led.

While marketing is used primarily to sell stuff.

When you see AI enabled tools that enhance a job search, be mindful of companies selling the magic of unknowable technology, rather than directly leading to the outcome you may be looking for.

That said there are many wonderful applications for AI inside and outside of a job search.

Some of which automate and take away the burden of the more painful aspects of looking for a job.

From writing CVs/resumes, to applying at scale for you. And potentially doing the interview for you, with burgeoning deepfake technology.

Should you use AI in your job search and how?

The answer is this question:

“Will it be seen as cheating, if the employer finds out I’ve used AI?”

Given recruitment processes are in part designed to extrapolate how you might behave and perform in a role, the sense of cheating can lead to an instant ‘no’.

And with the advent of an AI arms race, you should be careful in what you choose to use.

Yes, I know the odds are stacked against job seekers, through a combination of the market, systems and philosophy.

But it’s a question of what you have control over. Do you want others to make arbitrary decisions over your application, only because you’ve used AI?

My fellow recruiter, and an excellent one at that, Simon Monaghan recently shared his experience of a candidate using AI to answer standard interview questions.

These are issues we will increasingly face in recruitment.

What do I mean by arms race?

Let’s look at using AI to write a CV.

In one sense it’s no different to paying someone to write your CV for you, such as a CV Writer. And it’s free.

So, no problem, right?

Yet, many applicants who are wholly unsuitable can use the same AI to write a customised CV that paints them as someone worth assessing at interview. A waste of time for the employer, or worse which could lead to a misshire, and also taking attention away from suitable candidates such as you.

This creates suspicion over the veracity of AI written CVs.

Therefore it makes sense to use AI to check if CVs are written by AI.

You can see many of these tools already available for free - just google “AI checker.”

For each development in job seeker AI, you’ll see an opposing one come up at the hiring end. And because these are all based on the same principles, they are relatively simple to develop.

Besides, at the moment, AI written content stands out for the wrong reasons - you can generally tell when it’s used, with practise.

If you’ve used AI, with good intent, it can still backfire, should a hiring process consider it cheating.

There’s a wider discussion to be had, outside of the purview of this article, which is that of reasonable adjustments for disability and neurodiversity. What about for non-English speakers, when fluent written English isn’t necessary?

How about someone with limited time that happens to be the perfect candidate?

Shouldn’t we enable candidates to put forwards the best version of themselves straightforwardly?

At the moment, though, what matters is how hiring processes *might* view the use of AI. Which is what should inform your use of it.

Does that mean you shouldn’t use it at all?

No, it’s situation dependent, you just need to consider the consequences.

If I were looking for an early career job that paid the bills, and was aware of the huge competition for a wide number of vacancies - I’d look at something like LazyApply to automate.

While, if I were simply receptive to a very unusual opportunity, it wouldn’t be relevant.

A more straightforward discussion is the uses where AI augments your own intelligence, rather than automates manual process.

Here, I wholeheartedly recommend looking into options and being creative:

  • Tools to check spelling & grammar, used judiciously (I ignore most of grammarly’s advice on how to improve my writing style, for example)

  • Using Gemini or ChatGPT to compare your CV against a job description. Check for gaps, synonyms, how you might articulate your experience.

  • Asking for examples of achievements you can use as collateral to support your documentation and interviews, then replacing these examples with the facts of your experience:

  • Building a key word thesaurus.

  • Use for ideation and sense checking. I’ll paste this article into Gemini and ChatGPT and ask for its ‘thoughts’. Some of its feedback is helpful, especially as I’m self-employed and don’t have someone to check for me.

  • Asking questions around your career path - job titles, industries to look at; qualifications to underpin your experience.

  • Using it as a buddy to ask questions of, help with research and interview preparations (e.g. what questions might I be asked in an interview for a CTO; the company is a venture funded started with 30 employees, operating in SaaS).

  • Purpose specific tools that have been error checked. Such as those that share market insights in your domain - prospects for speculative approaches, networking opportunities, knowledge sharing etc

None of these will be perceived as ‘cheating’, given it’s behind the scenes work that support your candidacy.

In this way, AI can effectively support your job search.

Of course, there’s an argument that you might do whatever it takes to get a job. And that it’s only a problem if you are caught cheating.

That’s not something I’d advise, but it’s your choice if you want to automate as much as you can.

Just be wary then of the quality of its output.

If you are someone with hiring authority reading this, out of curiousity, let me add this.

AI in itself isn’t a cheat, especially if what is represented is factual or inherently true.

If you catch someone out in process for using AI, I’d recommend investigating why they’ve used it, rather than assuming.

The process of securing a new role is a skill that everyone has a different level of, much of which can be learnt over a long-term job search.

In some situations, people can afford CV Writers, LinkedIn profile upgrades, career & interview coaching. However all these do is allow them to provide a better version of themselves.

AI is no different, albeit less effective on an individual basis. If you see use of AI as problematic, this biases people with less means to pay for support, the same people who likely need the most help.

By all means, question why someone has used a tool to support their application. Just don’t be too quick to judge, especially if you use tools in your role, to enable your work.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

Jump the shark. A Recruitment AiDE, pt 13

By Greg Wyatt • January 29, 2026
May 2023 You’ve heard the phrase, I take it – “jump the shark”? It’s the moment when one surprising or absurd experience can indicate a rapid descent into rubbishness and obscurity. When it’s time to get off the bus. Typically in media. Jumping the Shark comes from an episode of Happy Days in which the Fonz does a water ski jump over a shark. 👈 Aaaaay. 👉 A sign creators have run out of ideas, or can’t be bothered to come up with fresh ones. In movies, sequelitis is a good example of this – an unnecessary sequel done to make some cash, in the hope the audience doesn’t care about its quality. Sometimes they become dead horses to flog, such as the missteps that are any Terminator film after 2. It’s an issue that can lead to consumers abandoning what they were doing, with such a precipitous drop in engagement that the thing itself is then cancelled. Partly because of breaking trust in what was expected to happen next. And because it’s a sign that the disbelief that was temporarily suspended has come crashing down. If you don’t believe that your current poor experience will lead to further, better experiences, why would you bother? Once you’ve had your fingers burnt, how hard is it to find that trust in similar experiences? It doesn’t have to be a single vein of experience for all to be affected. Watch one dodgy superhero movie and how does it whet your appetite for the next? You didn’t see The Eternals? Lucky you. Or how about that time we had really bad service at Café Rouge, a sign of new management that didn’t care, and we never went again? Just me? Did they sauter par-dessus le requin? Here’s the rub – it matters less that these experiences have jumped the shark. It matters more what the experience means for expectation. So it is in candidate experience. It’s not just the experience you provide that tempers expectations – it’s the cumulated experience of other processes that creates an assumption of what might be expected of yours. If you’re starting from a low trust point, what will it take for your process to ‘jump the shark’ and lose, not just an engaged audience, but those brilliant candidates that might only have considered talking to you if their experience hadn’t been off-putting? Not fair, is it, that the experience provided by other poor recruitment processes might affect what people expect of yours? Their experiences aren’t in your control, the experience you provide is. Of my 700 or so calls with exec job seekers, since The Pandemic: Lockdown Pt 1, many described the candidate experience touchpoints that led to them deciding not to proceed with an application. These were calls that were purely about job search strategy, and not people I could place. However, one benefit for me is that they are the Gemba , and I get to hear their direct experiences outside of my recruitment processes. Experiences such as - ‘£Competitive salary’ in an advert or DM, which they know full well means a lowball offer every time, because it happened to them once or twice, or perhaps it was just a LinkedIn post they read. Maybe it isn’t your problem at all, maybe your £competitive is upper 1% - how does their experience inform their assumptions? Or when adverts lend ambiguity to generic words, what meaning do they find, no matter how far from the truth? How the arrogance of a one-sided interview process affects their interest. The apparent narcissism in many outreaches in recruitment (unamazing, isn’t it, that bad outreach can close doors, rather than open them). Those ATS ‘duplicate your CV’ data entry beasts? Fool me once… Instances that are the catalysts for them withdrawing. I’d find myself telling them to look past these experiences, because a poor process can hide a good job. It’s a common theme in my jobseeker posts, such as a recent one offering a counterpoint to the virality that is “COVER LETTERS DON’T M4TT£R agree?” Experiences that may not be meant by the employer, or even thought of as necessarily bad, yet are drivers for decisions and behaviour. I can only appeal to these job seekers through my posts and calls. What about those other jobseekers who I’m not aware of, who’ve only experienced nonsense advice? What about those people who aren’t jobseekers? What about those people who think they love their roles? What about all those great candidates who won’t put up with bad experiences? The more sceptical they are, and the further they are from the need for a new role, the less bullshit they’ll put up with. What happens when an otherwise acceptable process presents something unpalatable? Might this jumping the shark mean they go no further? Every time the experience you provide doesn’t put their needs front and centre or if it’s correlated to their bad experiences…. these can prevent otherwise willing candidates from progressing with your process, whether that’s an advert they don’t apply to, a job they don’t start, or everything in between. Decisions that may stem from false assumptions of what a bad experience will mean. Instead, look to these ‘bad experience’ touchpoints as opportunities to do better: instead of £competitive, either state a salary or a legitimate reason why you can’t disclose salary (e.g. “see below” if limited by a job board field and “we negotiate a fair salary based on the contribution of the successful candidate, and don’t want to limit compensation by a band”) instead of a 1-way interrogation… an interview instead of radio silence when there’s no news - an update to say there’s no update, and ‘How are things with you by the way?’ instead of Apply Now via our Applicant Torture Sadistificator, ‘drop me a line if you have any questions’ or ‘don’t worry if you don’t have an updated CV - we’ll sort that later’. Opportunity from adversity. And why you can look at bad experiences other processes provide as a chance to do better. With the benefit that, if you eliminate poor experience, you'll lose fewer candidates unnecessarily, including those ideal ones you never knew about. Bad experiences are the yin to good experience’s yang and both are key parts of the E that is Experience in the AIDE framework. The good is for next time. Thanks for reading.  Regards, Greg

How To Network For A Job - Jobseeker Basics XIV

By Greg Wyatt • January 26, 2026
The following is Chapter 42 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . In a sense it's a microcosm of how any commercial activity can see a better return - which is to put the needs of the person you are appealing to above your own. It feels counterintuitive, especially when you have a burning need, but you can see the problem of NOT doing this simply by looking at 99% of job adverts: We are. We need. We want. What you'll do for us. What you might get in return. Capped off by the classic "don't call us, we'll call you." If you didn't need a job, how would you respond to that kind of advert? In the same vein, if you want networking to pay off, how will your contact's life improve by your contact? What's in it for them? 42 - How to network for a job Who are the two types of people you remember at networking events? For me two types stand out. One will be the instant pitch networker. This might work if you happen to be in need right now of what they have to offer or if mutual selling is your goal. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this but it’s a selling activity pretending to be networking. If you want to sell, go and overtly sell rather than disguise it with subterfuge. Lest we mark your face and avoid you where possible in future. The second is the one who gets to know you, shows interest and tries to add to your experience. You share ideas, and there’s no push to buy something. They believe that through building the relationship when you have a problem they can solve, you’ll think to go to them. It’s a relationship built on reciprocity. One where if you always build something together there is reason to keep in touch. And where the outcome is what you need if the right elements come together: right person, right time, right message, right place, right offering, right price. Job search networking is no different. The purpose of networking in a job search is to build a network where you are seen as a go-to solution should a suitable problem come up. In this case the problem you solve is a vacancy. Either because your active network is recruiting, or because they advocate for you when someone they know is recruiting. It is always a two-way conversation you both benefit from. Knowledge sharing, sounding board, see how you’re doing - because of what the relationship brings to you both. It is not contacting someone only to ask for a job or a recommendation. A one-way conversation that relies on lucky timing. That second approach can be effective as a type of direct sales rather than networking. If you get it wrong it may even work against you. How would you feel if someone asked to network with you, when it became clear they want you to do something for them? You might get lucky and network with someone who is recruiting now - more likely is that you nurture that relationship over time. If your goal is only to ask for help each networking opportunity will have a low chance of success. While if your goal is to nurture a relationship that may produce a lead, you’ll only have constructive outcomes. This makes it sensible to start by building a network with people that already know you: Former direct colleagues and company colleagues Industry leaders and peers Recruiters you have employed or applied through Don’t forget the friends you aren’t in regular touch with - there is no shame in being out of work and it would be a shame if they didn’t think of you when aware of a suitable opening. These people are a priority because they know you, your capability and your approach and trust has already been built. Whereas networking with people you don't know requires helping them come to know and trust you. Networking with people you know is the most overlooked tactic by the exec job seekers I talk to (followed by personal branding). These are the same people who see the hidden jobs market as where their next role is, yet overlook what’s in front of them. If you are looking for a new role on the quiet - networking is a go-to approach that invites proactive contact to you. Networking with people who know people you know, then people in a similar domain, then people outside of this domain - these are in decreasing order of priority. Let's not forget the other type of networking. Talking to fellow job seekers is a great way to share your pain, take a load off your shoulders, bounce ideas off each other, and hold each other accountable. LinkedIn is the perfect platform to find the right people if you haven't kept in touch directly. Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a conduit to conversation. It isn’t the conversation itself. Speaking in real life is where networking shines because while you might build a facsimile of a relationship in text, it's no replacement for a fluid conversation. Whether by phone and video calls, real life meetups, business events, seminars, conferences, expos, or in my case - on dog walks and waiting outside of the school gates. Both these last two have led to friends and business for me though the latter hasn’t been available since 2021. Networking isn’t 'What can I get out of it?' Instead, ‘What’s in it for them?’ The difference is the same as those ransom list job adverts compared to the rare one that speaks to you personally. How can you build on this relationship by keeping in touch? Networking is systematic, periodic and iterative: Map out your real life career network. Revisit anyone you’ve ever worked with and where Find them on LinkedIn Get in touch ‘I was thinking about our time at xxx. Perhaps we could reconnect - would be great to catch up’ If they don’t reply, because life can be busy, diarise a follow up What could be of interest to them? A LinkedIn post might be a reason to catch up When you look up your contact’s profile look at the companies they’ve worked at. They worked there for a reason, which may be because of a common capability to you Research these companies. Are there people in relevant roles worth introducing yourself to? Maybe the company looks a fit with your aspirations - worth getting in touch with someone who may be a hiring manager or relevant recruiter? Maybe they aren’t recruiting now. Someone to keep in touch with because of mutual interests. Click on Job on their company page, then "I'm interested" - this helps for many reasons, including flagging your interest as a potential employee Keep iterating your network and find new companies as you look at new contacts. This is one way we map the market in recruitment to headhunt candidates - you can mirror this with your networking The more proactive networking you build into your job search, the luckier you might get. While you might need to nurture a sizeable network and there are no guarantees, think about the other virtues of networking - how does that compare to endless unreplied applications? I often hear from job seekers who found their next role through networking. This includes those who got the job because of their network even though hundreds of applicants were vying for it. While this may be unfair on the applicants sometimes you can make unfair work for you. It can be effective at any level.