AI in Hiring: We’re Doing It Wrong
[Excerpt From My Book – My Dinner with Monday]
Summary: [This was originally a blog post. I revised, expanded, and folded it into one of the chapters of My Dinner with Monday. It’s “book excerpt” week but this one has a blog-style edge. AI in hiring has become a farce. Companies use AI to write job descriptions, AI to screen applicants, and then penalize candidates for using AI. Rudy tests this absurdity by running a real and AI-generated cover letter through detection tools only to find that the real one scores more “AI” than the fake. Even the job post itself flags as 100% AI. The takeaway: if you’re being rejected by broken systems, you’re not missing out but evolving past them. What’s framed today as “cheating” (like AI tools) will soon be mandatory. Just like spellcheck.]
Just for fun, I asked AI to write a cover letter for a job that explicitly warned:
“If AI is detected, applications will be rejected.”
I ran the AI-generated letter through an AI detector.
Result: 85% human.
Then I took a real cover letter I wrote back in 2015 before ChatGPT even existed and tested that one.
Result: 90% AI.
To complete the irony, I ran the job posting through the detector.
Result: 100% AI.
Consider the absurdity:
Companies are using AI to write job descriptions
Then using AI to screen applicants
Then rejecting those same applicants for allegedly using AI.
It’s like a robot accusing you of being too robotic.
If you’re getting rejected—even without using AI—consider it a blessing.
These companies are filtering talent through broken systems and outdated thinking.
If you think you’re missing out on anything, you’re not. You’re just dodging a slow-moving iceberg.
My strength has always been streamlining processes and improving efficiency.
So let me make this as clear as day:
If a company rejects people because of flawed automation, that’s not innovation. That is stagnation pretending to be progress. I don’t work for systems like that. I outgrow them.
I remember back in 2006, a university dean once told me:
“Online classes are a joke. They have no future. No real company would hire someone who took them. If you took an online class, you’d be a fool.”
Looking at things now, who looks like the fool? Turns out the future didn’t ask for her permission.
Did they also complain when people started using spellcheck?
Probably.1
Back then, someone likely called it “cheating,” too.
Now? If you don’t use it, you’re considered sloppy.
Give it time.
The same hiring managers rejecting candidates for using AI will soon be rejecting them for not using AI.
“Can you believe this guy? He wrote a messy cover letter and didn’t even run it through AI. How unprofessional.”
Mark my words, it’s coming.
Next thing you know, they’ll want you to handwrite your résumé in cursive.
Problem is…
…𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎 𝒹𝑜𝓃’𝓉 𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒸𝒽 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝒶𝓃𝓎𝓂𝑜𝓇𝑒.
Want more stuff like this? Subscribe below or
🏠 Find out more at my homepage
Φ Order Quote Cards from the book on mugs, coasters, and plaques—because reading books is hard, but sipping from one is easy.
(You’ll learn less. I’ll earn more. Everyone wins.)
Professor STEM USA (Forum 2024) -I’m old as dirt; I recall in 1980s word processing software and spell check were controversial in some schools & departments. Some older faculty wanted papers written in longhand, and feared typists might be forced out of work.