AI vs Authentic Resumes

I can spot an AI-written resume in about thirty seconds. Most recruiters can too.

The language is immaculate. Every sentence lands cleanly. The summary is polished to the point of being completely generic. There is not a gap unexplained, an awkward phrase, or a single trace of personality anywhere on the page.

That is not a resume. That is a prompt with a name at the top.

I am not saying AI-assisted resumes are automatically disqualifying. A candidate who uses a tool to tighten their language or improve structure is doing nothing wrong. What I am saying is that if the entire document has been generated – if there is no human fingerprint anywhere in it – it tells you almost nothing about the person behind it.

What you need a resume to show you is the detail that could not have been produced by a tool. The project outcome with a real number attached. The career move that does not follow the obvious path, explained in the candidate’s own words. The cover letter that references something specific about your organisation not something lifted from your About page and polished into palatability.

Authenticity has texture. A person who has lived their career writes about it differently to a system that has summarised it. You can feel the difference. The slightly imperfect sentence that captures something real. The example that is specific enough to be verifiable. The acknowledgement of a challenge that was actually hard.

Authenticity has texture. AI does not. When you are reviewing applications, look for the human underneath the document. If you cannot find one, ask yourself whether the resume is doing all the talking and whether that is enough to make an informed hiring decision.