But candidates complain that employers use AI too.
AI-written job descriptions. AI screening. AI interviews. AI-generated rejection emails.
Feels like we're heading toward a world where AI is talking to AI, and humans occasionally join the call 🤡
WDYT?
Candidates seem more prepared than ever.
Not necessarily more skilled. Just more prepared.
Better stories. Better answers. Better frameworks. Better communication.
Sometimes I walk away thinking: that was a great interview.
And then realize... I'm not actually sure whether the person is great at the job.
Has anyone else noticed this?
How are you figuring out what's preparation and what's actual capability these days?
i've been interviewing quite a few candidates recently, mostly in tech-related roles, and i'm starting to wonder whether traditional cvs are becoming a much weaker signal than they used to be.
it feels like almost everyone knows how to optimize their application now. cvs are polished, linkedin profiles are polished, people prepare extensively for interviews, and ai tools make it easier than ever to improve how experience is presented.
i'm not saying candidates are doing anything wrong. if the tools exist, people will use them.
what i'm struggling with is figuring out which signals are actually reliable now.
i've had situations where someone's cv and take-home work looked excellent, but the live conversation told a very different story. i've also seen the opposite happen.
have you changed the way you assess candidates over the last year or two?
what parts of your hiring process still feel like strong indicators of real competence?
I feel like recruiting is entering a really weird phase where it’s becoming genuinely harder to evaluate real skills.
Not because candidates are worse, but because everyone now has access to tools that help optimize everything. AI-written CVs, AI-generated take-home tasks, polished recruiter communication, ATS optimization, interview prep tailored to specific companies… honestly, on paper, a lot of people now look equally impressive.
And I’m not even blaming candidates for this. People adapt to the system. Companies created processes that reward optimization, so naturally, people optimize.
But it makes me wonder if the traditional CV is slowly becoming one of the least reliable parts of the hiring process.
I’ve started noticing that the most valuable signals are often things outside the CV itself. The way someone thinks live during a conversation. How they communicate. Their actual portfolio or proof of work. Feedback from people they worked with. Real problem solving in real time.
Curious how recruiters and hiring managers here are adapting to this.
How do you actually verify real competence today, especially in tech or knowledge-work roles?