To AI or not to AI, that is the question

There's a scene I've started to recognise on every search I run now.

The application arrives. The cover letter is crisp, well-structured, articulate. It opens with something like: "I am writing to express my keen interest in this role, which aligns seamlessly with my professional journey and long-term career aspirations."

And then, two applications later, I read the exact same sentence again. Word for word.

That's the AI tell. Not bad writing. Identical writing.

The trap most candidates are walking into

Job seekers have latched onto AI tools to solve a very real problem: the paralysis of the blank page. Cover letters. CVs. LinkedIn bios. Personal statements. These are genuinely hard to write, especially when you're already anxious about the job market. AI removes the friction. It gets something down. And for that, it deserves credit.

But here's what's happening in practice. Candidates are feeding in their job title, the job description, maybe a few bullet points from their CV, and hitting generate. They read it back, think "that sounds good," and hit send.

The problem isn't the output. The problem is the input.

When everyone uses the same tool with thin inputs, the outputs converge. The same openers. The same phrasing. The same breathless enthusiasm for roles that "align seamlessly." I've read hundreds of applications on a single search. The ones generated at arm's length read like they were written by the same person, because in a sense, they were.

And candidates don't realise how obvious this is to people on the other side of the process.

What AI actually does well

I don't want to be reductive about this. AI is a genuinely useful tool in a job search, used properly.

It solves the procrastination problem. Staring at a blank document is exhausting when you're already demoralised. AI breaks the inertia. It gives you something to react to, edit, push back on. That is real value.

It imposes structure. Most people undersell themselves not because they lack experience, but because they don't know how to organise what they have. AI can create a coherent framework, an introduction, a middle, a close, that many people struggle to construct under pressure.

It builds momentum. Getting a first draft done means you're no longer starting from zero. That matters psychologically.

These are legitimate benefits. The mistake is treating the first draft as the final draft.

Where it falls apart

AI doesn't know you. It knows what you told it, and it knows how to sound plausible. Those are not the same thing.

Your most powerful career asset is specificity: the project that went sideways and how you handled it, the team you inherited and turned around, the decision you made that no one else wanted to make. AI cannot manufacture those details. You have to give them. If you don't, you get a polished but generic version of a professional, someone who "drives results," "thrives in dynamic environments," and "brings a collaborative approach." Everyone says this. None of it lands.

There's also an authenticity gap that experienced recruiters and hiring managers feel, even when they can't name it. Something reads slightly too smooth, slightly too complete. It's like meeting someone in person who turns out to be nothing like their dating profile. You can't always say exactly what's off, you just know.

How to actually use it

Give it something real to work with. Before you open the tool, write a few rough sentences in your own voice, messy, unpolished, stream-of-consciousness. What specifically draws you to this role? What's the one thing from your career that makes you right for it? What do you actually want this person reading it to know?

Then use AI to shape that. Not to replace it.

Read the output back and ask yourself one question: does this sound like me? Not "does it sound good." Does it sound like me. If you'd be embarrassed reading it aloud in an interview, revise it.

Change the structure. Swap out the phrases you wouldn't say in conversation. Add the specific detail that only you could add. The goal is a document that's well-organised and distinctly yours, not one or the other.

And get a second opinion from someone who'll tell you the truth. Not a friend who says it's great. Someone who reads this kind of material professionally, or knows you well enough to say "that doesn't sound like you at all."

A closing thought

The candidates who stand out in a competitive market are the ones who use AI as a starting point and take it somewhere personal, not the ones who use it as a shortcut to the finish line.

The tool is only as good as what you put into it. Which, as it turns out, is still on you.