Recruitment is now a two-sided tech battle. On one side, companies are turning to AI tools to sift through thousands of applications—scanning CVs for keywords, ranking candidates by fit, and even scoring pre-recorded video interviews.
On the other side, jobseekers are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude to help write their CVs, polish cover letters, and script interview answers.
What was once a human-led process has now become an algorithm-versus-algorithm contest. And as more people use AI to apply, employers respond with even more automation to keep up.
This AI arms race isn’t helping either side. It’s flooding the system with generic, formulaic applications—and ironically, making it harder to find real talent.
Where’s the Human Touch?
A growing number of candidates say the hiring process has become cold and disorienting. Many go through entire application journeys—CV upload, video interview, rejection—without ever speaking to a human. Some candidates even say, I perform much better in an inperson interview, but I never get the chance to showcase my ability beyond the video interviews.
In an article in the Financial Times, one jobseeker described being scored by AI during a one-way video interview. The experience left her feeling confused and embarrassed. After recording herself in silence, unsure what the AI wanted to hear, she was unable to ask questions and have small back and fourth for clarification.
In a rush to automate hiring, have we removed the very thing that makes a strong hire possible—human connection?
Gaming the System
One of the biggest problems is how AI changes the way people approach the CV itself.
Today, most candidates know they’re writing for a machine, not a person. So they adapt—adding keywords from the job description, inflating skill sections, and formatting their documents just to pass algorithmic screening.
But when every CV becomes a strategic performance, does it still reflect a person’s real capabilities? Or are we just measuring how well someone can write for an algorithm?
It’s a strange moment: the CV is still central to most hiring processes, but fewer and fewer people believe it’s actually useful.
So… Is the CV Still Relevant?
This is the core question.
If anyone can generate a flawless CV in seconds—and if hiring systems are scanning for structure and keywords, not substance—then what role is the CV really playing?
Some industry leaders think it’s time for a fundamental shift. In a letter published by the FT, UK minister Viscount Camrose argued that instead of bolting AI onto outdated hiring models, we should rethink recruitment entirely—from how candidates apply, to how they’re assessed and selected.
That could mean moving away from the CV altogether—and toward task-based assessments, live problem-solving, or portfolio-driven hiring.
A Return to Balance
In response to all this, some companies are already adjusting course.
They’re bringing back human interviews, using simulation-style assessments, and adding more structured evaluations to better understand real ability.
The goal isn’t to get rid of AI. It’s to use it alongside human judgment, not in place of it.
Final Thoughts: What Comes After the CV?
It’s clear that AI has outpaced the old ways of hiring. The traditional CV, once a useful snapshot of someone’s background, now feels more like a ticket to pass through a machine than a meaningful reflection of who someone is.
That’s why we’re asking: Should the CV still be at the centre of hiring in 2025? Or is it time to build something better—more human, more equitable, and more effective?
The tools are already here. What’s missing is the will to rethink the system.
