The Growing us of AI in CV writing
“Everybody else is doing it, so why can’t I?” Slightly altering The Cranberries’ phenomenal first album title, I’m querying whether my reluctance to adopt AI is because of a Luddite tendency on my behalf, or my desire to maintain a critical thinking and creative capability?
My first writing in relation to ChatGPT was to advise not to use it for CV creation. My sense at the time was that delegating the creation of your personal brochure was a signal of laziness and lack of interest. I lost that argument, apparently, as most CVs I now see have an element of AI.
Why human judgement still matters when using AI
Do employers now expect candidates to demonstrate through their CV that they’re AI-capable? Can candidates not just state that they’re proficient, and highlight capabilities and training?
Demonstrating that you can use AI when required, and where it’s appropriate, is certainly important, but in my opinion even now, not to create your own message.
My second experiment with AI related to summarising some aspects of Requests for Tender documents. Using the same prompts and the same documents, I found subtle differences in the outputs upon re-runs, meaning I couldn’t entirely rely on their accuracy. I also found that seeing an output from AI in 1 minute, as opposed to spending 20 minutes actually doing the analysis myself, resulted in my not spotting anomalies or fully appreciating some significant nuances in the requirements. My conclusion is that if I really want to understand something I need to read and question the content myself, particularly if less than 10 pages or so.
Is AI making everyone’s writing sound the same?
More recent experiences with AI are proving ever more awe-inspiring and scarier in parallel. More people are mastering its use to create well-written documents and correspondence that no longer immediately signal that it’s AI.
However, on second reading, and on seeing more and more well-constructed writing, a further problem arises. If it’s perfectly constructed, using neutral tones, and appears bland…then it’s most likely AI. “Semantic Ablation” is AI’s tendency to destroy diversity in vocabulary and revert to the mean, so that everything reads as safe, bland and boring.
The importance of communication and individuality
So, if someone is looking to stand out through their writing, either in an email, or a tender document, then using AI will do the opposite. It may be perfect, but the language will be predictable and standard, and the same as everyone else using AI.
If your future depends on a need to reach people, influence them and differentiate from others, then retaining the ability to formulate thoughts and hone a message is vital. Frequent use of AI will diminish this ability, so be careful in terms of usage.
“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so wrote a long one instead”. Mark Twain’s point is ever more prescient, further explained as “Too often, I’ve spoken a careless barrage of words that muddled my intention and was lost to the listener”.
I’m now seeing 5 page responses listing 10 advantages of a certain approach to simple emails requesting inputs on decisions being considered. It takes 10 seconds longer for AI to generate 500 words as opposed to 50.
But how is that fair to the recipient? Does it lead to better decisions, to open up a debate to this extent? What’s the correct response? Summarise the original answer and propose 10 reasons to do the opposite?
How should candidates use AI when writing their CV?
AI can be a useful tool when preparing your CV, but it should support your efforts rather than do all the thinking for you. Use it to review spelling and grammar, improve structure or help identify relevant skills and experience. However, avoid relying on generic descriptions or simply copying AI-generated content. Your CV should reflect your actual experience, achievements and personality. Ultimately, you need to be able to confidently discuss everything on your CV and demonstrate the skills and knowledge behind it. Use AI to refine your message, not replace your own voice.
Are we becoming too reliant on AI?
The Luddites were skilled textile artisans who in the early nineteenth century broke machinery to fight against falling wages, poor working conditions, and the deskilling of their craft. By resisting the textile machines, they wanted to reduce volumes of clothing being produced, denying the needs of the population for lower cost mass produced garments.
Is resisting the use of AI to write on our behalf another example of Luddism? Do we need more words, more quickly? Do we need mass produced descriptions of ourselves, our abilities and our thoughts? No, we don’t. We need to retain our ability to differentiate, create pictures with words and spark interest.
