A robot applies for a job
What I realised from reviewing AI-written job applications
I reviewed 90 research applications. Around a third were near identical. How is this possible? Some reflections and a surprising discovery.
We recently advertised for a role. To apply, individuals were asked to submit a short research proposal. The task tested how the applicant would investigate our research questions, and shed light on their experience.
The standard was high across applications, but I soon started to notice a pattern.
Many had the same steps, in the same order, using the same methods and often the same phrasing. In an exam, I’d suspect plagiarism, but these individuals were geographically distant, and unlikely to be connected.
My guess would be the use of AI. It’s hard to prove, but how else can so many separate people write the same thing?
Now, I’m fine with people using AI for tasks like this. It can help those where English is a second language, spot assumptions in research proposals or even suggest new research approaches. No, my reflections are not with the completion of the task (that’s a different discussion) but the result and the effect it had on me as a reviewer.
My job was to find outstanding candidates. I saw some great CVs, but then would sigh when I reached the proposal and recognised the carbon copy reproduction. It felt lazy - especially where the applicant had great credentials. I tried not to be too harsh on these applications, as I had no real proof, but then I noticed a surprising thing.
The uniformity of many applications made others stand out. These applications ‘broke the mould’ in a situation where there shouldn’t have been uniformity.
Sure, these ‘different’ applications were not all as concise and neatly written, but they bubbled with curiosity and creativity. They dared in more unexpected ways, showed exciting nuance in perception of the task, and projected individuality.
Put simply, the likely use of AI here highlighted other cases of personal passion and humanity. Ok, these individuals might also have used AI but if they did, it was in a way that made their individuality stand out.
Two thoughts jump out from this:
- Despite the hype around the technology, how much has AI actually really changed the situation here? While the pattern was surprising, standing out has always been a part of job applications. It’s just that here, the likely use of AI seemed to do the opposite - which leads me to point 2..
- Sure, use AI to support your application, but make sure not to lose yourself in the process. It’s sad here that the value of some talented individuals was hidden behind the likely copying and pasting of a prompt. You’re worth more than that. I’m not looking to hire Chat GPT. Let your passion and curiosity shine through.
And yes ok, one could just add that above wording to the prompt, but I think they would be missing the point.
What do you think? Have you had similar experiences?