Articles

A recent study conducted by the workplace engagement platform Kahoot! brings an interesting trend to light: 65% of recent graduates now rely on artificial intelligence tools, like ChatGPT, to craft their cover letters and job applications. The research also highlighted that over half (51%) of these jobseekers confess to inflating their abilities on their CVs or LinkedIn profiles. When breaking down the specific areas of embellishment, 53% admitted to exaggerating their previous work experience, 39% overstated their language skills, 37% exaggerated their educational background or qualifications, and 36% inflated their previous job titles. Whether you are a hiring manager, an HR professional, or a recruiter, the message is clear. We must look past the glossy, perfectly formatted documents and recognise the new reality of the job market. AI-assisted applications are rapidly becoming standard practice. Interestingly, a recent poll hosted on Reed’s LinkedIn page uncovered that a mere 37% of businesses have updated their recruitment strategies to handle AI-generated or heavily exaggerated applications. As a leading global recruitment service provider, Reed Recruitment is witnessing a significant transformation in how candidates pursue new roles. A CV is no longer guaranteed to be the product of a candidate's hard work and late-night typing. Artificial intelligence has made it remarkably simple for anyone to produce sleek, highly professional documents in a matter of moments. While these digital tools certainly help level the playing field for individuals who might find professional writing challenging, they present a unique hurdle for employers. Identifying the use of AI is not about penalising applicants or instantly rejecting their applications. Rather, it is about gaining a true understanding of the person you are assessing. By noticing the hallmarks of machine-written content, you can adjust your interview strategies to uncover a candidate’s genuine skills and potential. Below, several of our recruitment experts share the most common indicators that a digital ghostwriter might have crafted a candidate's application. 1. Flawless yet generic language One of the most immediate giveaways of an AI-crafted document is its absolute perfection. Because artificial intelligence models learn from massive collections of professional text, they almost never produce grammatical faults. Gaurav Tewari, Location Head for Reed’s Middle East operation, observes: “Spotless applications with no typos used to stand out as a positive sign, but with the rise of AI, this level of perfection has become almost routine. In all my recruitment experience, I have never encountered such a volume of error-free CVs.” Gaurav further explains: “While AI-generated CVs on the surface can make an applicant seem impressively creative—almost granting them an artistic edge—you only really get a sense of authenticity once you speak with the candidate. That’s often when it becomes clear the document has been either fully written by AI or at least significantly enhanced with its help.” Klára Pethő, Director for both Reed Germany and Reed Hungary, notes: “Keep an eye out for applications that read in a very clinical or textbook fashion. Instead of conveying unique experiences, these CVs often present perfectly structured sentences using advanced vocabulary, but they lack the personal touch and quirks characteristic of genuine human writing. “For instance, someone might say, ‘I managed a team of five to reduce our profit and loss by 20%,’ whereas AI-generated text could recast this as, ‘Led a dynamic team of five professionals, implementing synergistic strategies to drive a 20% reduction in profit and loss.’ The latter sounds polished but lacks the distinct human touch. If a CV feels overly scripted and impersonal, that’s a strong sign AI may have played a major role in its creation.” 2. A stark contrast between the CV and cover letter A genuine application usually carries a consistent thread. When individuals write their own documents, their personal tone, vocabulary choices, and sentence structures naturally flow across both the CV and the cover letter. When artificial intelligence is introduced into the mix, this consistency often vanishes. You might receive a highly emotive, beautifully structured cover letter packed with advanced vocabulary, only to find a dry, basic, and purely functional CV attached alongside it. This discrepancy typically occurs when a candidate uses a generative tool to draft a new letter but submits an older, manually written CV without updating its style. Hiring managers must watch for these tonal shifts. If the passionate professional described in the cover letter sounds entirely disconnected from the person listing their daily duties on the CV, there is a strong possibility that one of those documents was generated by an algorithm. 3. Americanised spelling in local applications The majority of prominent AI writing assistants are trained heavily on data originating from the United States. Unless a candidate explicitly instructs the software to utilise British English—a step many overlook—the resulting text will naturally feature American terminology and spelling conventions. Matthew Stirling, Recruitment Consultant specialising in accountancy recruitment, in Oxford,  explains, “If you're hiring in Oxford or elsewhere in the UK, noticing spellings like 'optimized', 'color', 'center', or 'program' in place of 'optimised', 'colour', 'centre', or 'programme' can be a subtle sign. You might also catch American turns of phrase, such as 'in the fall' instead of 'in autumn', or mentions of 'Grade Point Average (GPA)' rather than local degree results.” While some applicants may have international experience or simply favour American spellings, an application saturated with US English from someone whose entire career has been based locally is a prominent warning sign of digital assistance. 4. Ambiguous achievements without measurable context Machine learning tools excel at generating impressive-sounding statements that lack real substance. AI understands that describing someone as a "results-oriented professional" reads well, but it cannot know the intricate details of an applicant's career history unless heavily prompted. As a result, digitally generated CVs are frequently packed with broad claims that fail to provide tangible metrics. You will routinely encounter bullet points such as: "Improved departmental efficiency through strategic implementation of new protocols." "Enhanced customer satisfaction levels by fostering a culture of excellence." While these sentences appear highly professional, they reveal very little. Authentic applicants usually provide specific, factual evidence of their success, such as, "Reduced processing delays by two days by implementing Trello," or "Increased our Trustpilot rating from 3.5 to 4.8." If an application is heavy on corporate jargon but light on concrete facts, you are likely reading machine-generated text. 5. Highly repetitive phrasing and excessive em dashes Human writers naturally alternate their sentence lengths and structures to maintain reader interest, blending concise statements with more descriptive passages. Conversely, artificial intelligence tends to rely on predictable and repetitive formulas. Wayne Hulbert, Director of Reed Africa and Reed Poland, notes: “When reviewing CVs, pay close attention to whether many of the bullet points begin with the same action words, like ‘Managed’, ‘Created’, ‘Led’, or ‘Developed’. While it’s standard to use strong verbs, AI-generated documents often go too far, repeatedly relying on the same ones throughout.” "You might also notice that each paragraph begins with the same kind of transition, such as 'Furthermore,' 'Additionally,' or 'However.' When these connecting words are used in a repetitive, formulaic pattern, it often signals the presence of algorithm-generated writing." Beyond repetitive phrasing, there’s also a telltale punctuation clue. Wayne points out: “In candidate communications, and especially on CVs, you’ll often spot overuse of long dashes. AI seems to rely on these to break up complex sentences, almost as if it’s taking a shortcut to make the structure seem sophisticated. You can usually spot these a mile away.” 6. Keyword stuffing for applicant tracking systems (ATS) Many modern jobseekers understand that businesses utilise applicant tracking systems to screen incoming CVs. Generative platforms are exceptionally skilled at cramming specific keywords into documents to bypass these digital filters. If a CV reads as though it has simply mirrored your job advert word-for-word, proceed with caution. Sentences can feel highly unnatural when an applicant attempts to force phrases like "cross-functional collaboration," "stakeholder management," and "agile methodology" into a single paragraph. A candidate writing their own application will integrate their skills smoothly into their career narrative. AI, however, will often awkwardly insert these keywords at the expense of readability, aiming strictly to appease the screening algorithm. 7. The invention of skills and qualifications This is perhaps the most critical issue for employers to monitor. AI models are prone to "hallucinations"—a phenomenon where the system invents information to fill gaps when it lacks sufficient data. If a jobseeker asks an AI tool to create a CV for a senior marketing role without providing specific background details, the software may simply invent realistic-sounding projects or capabilities. Gwen Goh, Director of Reed Peck Seah Street within Singapore, shares: “More often now, CVs land on my desk boasting a wider range of qualifications than I’ve typically seen in the past. I’m also noticing references to skills that are either a bit outdated or not entirely relevant to the position, and sometimes even mentions of software that doesn’t really exist or isn’t applicable as described. For instance, there are candidates listing expertise in niche programming languages that aren’t used in the field, or claiming years of experience with a tool that’s only recently been released.” “It’s always important to double-check the details. If a project description feels vague or doesn’t quite fit with your industry, it’s worth probing further in the interview.” How should hiring managers adapt? If you suspect an applicant has heavily relied on an AI tool, it is important not to dismiss them immediately. The ability to effectively leverage new technologies can actually be a valuable asset in many modern roles. However, your primary objective remains unchanged: verifying that the candidate truly possesses the expertise required for the position. Here is how you can effectively assess candidates in an AI-driven landscape: Dive deep during the interview: If a CV feels overly broad, use the interview to demand specifics. If they claim to have 'spearheaded a strategic initiative', ask them to break down their daily actions and specific contributions to that project. Implement practical testing: Do not rely solely on the written application. Incorporate real-world assessments into your hiring process. An AI tool cannot deliver a live presentation or complete a supervised technical assessment on the candidate's behalf. Assess live communication: If strong writing is crucial for the role, have the candidate complete a short, supervised writing task. Alternatively, compare their verbal fluency during the interview against the sophisticated language used in their cover letter. Finding the best talent requires looking beyond the initial documentation. As AI continues to shape the future of work, understanding how to identify machine-generated applications will ensure you uncover the genuine potential behind the polished surface. At Reed Recruitment, our experts are highly experienced in navigating the evolving hiring landscape. If you want to secure the best talent for your organisation, get in touch with one of our local recruitment specialists today to elevate your hiring strategy.