AI In Job Applications: Where Should The Line Be?

AI is now part of the job application process.

But while a lot of the conversation has focused on how companies use AI to manage applications, there’s a more interesting and more immediate question for candidates:

What’s actually acceptable when you’re the one using AI to apply for a job?

Because the reality is, candidates are using it more than ever.

The shift: AI is now on both sides

Candidates today are:

• Using AI to structure CVs
• Improving cover letters
• Tailoring applications faster
• Preparing for interviews

At the same time, companies are:

• Using AI to organise applications
• Prioritise candidates
• Streamline hiring workflows

So naturally, the lines start to blur.

If companies are using AI in hiring, is it fair game for candidates to use it when applying?

 

What candidates actually think

Ahead of the upcoming Skillsearch Salary and Satisfaction Survey (launching 15th April), one insight stands out:

89% of people believe companies should have clear rules around AI use in the application process.

Not that AI shouldn’t be used but that expectations need to be defined.

Because right now, they aren’t.

The real questions candidates are asking

Across the market, the same themes keep coming up:

• Does using AI affect how my application is viewed?
• Is there a “responsible” level of AI use?
• Will I be penalised for using it?
• If a company uses AI, shouldn’t I be able to as well?

And more specifically:

• Is it acceptable to use AI to improve the structure of a CV?
• What about rewriting bullet points for clarity?
• Where does assistance become misrepresentation?

Where most people seem to agree

There’s a fairly clear line when it comes to misuse.

Most candidates understand that AI shouldn’t be used to:

• Complete technical tests
• Generate coding solutions
• Create art or portfolio work that isn’t genuinely theirs

That crosses from assistance into misrepresentation.

But outside of that, things get less clear.

Using AI to:

• Improve grammar
• Structure a CV
• Make experience easier to read

That feels very different.

It’s not replacing your experience. It’s helping you present it.

And that’s where the grey area sits.

The inconsistency problem

The challenge right now is simple:

Every company views this differently.

Some are completely open to AI-assisted applications. Some quietly accept it. Some actively frown upon it. Most don’t say anything at all.

So candidates are left guessing.

You could be:

• Doing exactly what another candidate is doing
• Using AI in a reasonable, supportive way

…but being judged differently depending on the company.

Linking back to the bigger picture

In a recent article I wrote, AI vs Applicants: Is Your CV Really Being Rejected by a Robot?, the key takeaway was that AI isn’t the gatekeeper people think it is.

The bigger issue is still volume and relevance.

That same principle applies here.

AI doesn’t magically make a weak application strong.

And it doesn’t replace:

• Relevant experience
• Clear alignment to the role
• Strong, specific examples

At best, it improves how you present what’s already there.

So what’s the “right” way to use AI as a candidate?

In my view a simple way to think about it:

Use AI to enhance clarity, not create substance.

Good use:

• Structuring your CV
• Improving readability
• Refining wording
• Preparing talking points

Bad use:

• Generating work that isn’t yours
• Misrepresenting your experience
• Submitting AI-created assessments

If the output no longer reflects your real capability, that’s where it becomes a problem.

The bigger issue: lack of transparency

Our soon to be published survey result points to something important.

This isn’t really about whether AI is good or bad.

It’s about clarity.

Candidates don’t want to guess.

They want to know:

• What’s acceptable
• What isn’t
• How their application will be assessed

And right now, most companies aren’t communicating that.

AI in applications isn’t going away. It’s already embedded in how people apply.

The reality is, expectations are going to vary from company to company.

But that’s exactly why clarity matters.

If a business has a stance on AI use in applications, it should be clear, visible, and communicated before someone even applies.

Because without that:

Candidates are left guessing. Standards become inconsistent. And the process feels less fair than it should.

Clear rules don’t limit candidates.

They level the playing field.

I am interested in hearing what stance your studio is taking on the use of AI in applications.

Skillsearch, the leading Global Games, XR and Immersive Technology Recruiter