
7 Resume Red Flags Hiring Managers Spot Instantly
Do you think you have a minute to impress a hiring manager? Try just 7.4 seconds. According to research from Ladders, that's all the time recruiters typically spend on an initial resume scan. In those fleeting moments, one mistake could mean the difference between a callback and the rejection pile. To help you stand out for the right reasons, I've compiled the seven most damaging resume red flags that instantly turn off hiring managers—and how to fix them.
The surge in AI tools like ChatGPT has made resume creation more accessible than ever. However, hiring managers have grown increasingly adept at identifying generic, AI-generated content. A recent Resume Genius survey revealed that 53% of hiring managers have reservations about resumes using AI-generated content, with 20% seeing it as a critical problem that could prevent them from hiring you. The issue isn't using AI as a starting point - it's submitting content that sounds mechanical, lacks your personal touch, and fails to showcase what makes you uniquely valuable to employers.
Leverage AI tools for initial brainstorming or creating a basic framework, but invest time in customizing your resume with specific accomplishments, measurable results, and relevant experiences that highlight your distinct value. Edit thoroughly to ensure your resume reflects your authentic voice rather than sounding like an algorithm mass-produced it.
Employment gaps aren't automatically disqualifying—but unexplained gaps raise questions. When hiring managers see periods of unemployment with no context, they may assume the worst—that you were fired, couldn't find work, or weren't doing anything productive during that time. They might also worry that these gaps indicate problems adapting to industry changes or suggest you need additional training.
Be transparent about employment gaps and frame them positively. If you took time off for education, family care, personal development, or freelance work, include this information on your resume. This approach demonstrates to hiring managers that you remained committed to your professional development and continued building valuable skills even during periods without traditional employment.
Recruiters are immediately turned off by poor resume design. In a document meant to showcase your professional capabilities, sloppy formatting signals a lack of attention to detail and poor judgment.
Common formatting red flags include:
• Inconsistent fonts or font sizes
• Cramped text with minimal white space
• Poor alignment and inconsistent spacing
• Hard-to-read font styles or colors
• Resumes longer than 1-2 pages (depending on experience level)
Use a clean, professional resume template with consistent formatting throughout. Stick to standard, readable fonts like Arial, Calibri, or Georgia at 10-12pt size. Ensure adequate white space and avoid tables, text boxes or overly stylized formatting to ensure your resume is ATS-friendly. Keep your resume to one to two pages unless you work in an industry that specifically requests longer documents or have extensive, relevant experience that warrants the additional space.
One of the most common resume mistakes is listing job duties rather than accomplishments. Hiring managers already know the basic responsibilities associated with your job title. What they really want to see is how well you performed them. Highlighting your achievements demonstrates your actual impact and value to previous employers.
Transform duty-based statements into achievement-focused bullets by including specific metrics, outcomes, and the value you brought to previous employers. For example:
Instead of: "Responsible for managing social media accounts and creating content for Instagram and TikTok."
Write: "Grew Instagram following from 5K to 25K in six months through targeted content strategy, resulting in a 40% increase in social media-driven sales."
While job-hopping isn't the taboo it once was—especially in fast-paced industries—a pattern of short stints without clear progression can still raise eyebrows. Employers often hesitate to hire candidates with a history of job-hopping, as it suggests you might quickly leave their organization—wasting their investment in your onboarding and training. Many hiring managers interpret frequent job changes as a sign of potential commitment issues or difficulty adapting to new workplace cultures.
If you have multiple short-term positions, consider grouping similar roles under one heading (e.g., "Freelance Marketing Consultant") or highlighting the strategic purpose behind each move. In your cover letter or interview, prepare to explain specifically how each position contributed to your professional development and why you're now seeking a stable, long-term opportunity. Frame your varied experience as a strength that brings diverse perspectives to your work.
In a document meant to showcase your attention to detail and professionalism, spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, and typos are inexcusable. Even a single error can signal to hiring managers that you either lack basic communication skills or didn't care enough about the position to proofread your application materials.
Don't rely solely on spell-check tools, which often miss contextual errors like using "their" instead of "there." After writing your resume, step away from it for a day, then return with fresh eyes. Read it aloud to catch awkward phrasing, and ask a trusted friend or colleague to review it. Consider using professional proofreading tools like Grammarly as an additional layer of protection against embarrassing mistakes.
Including too much personal information on your resume looks unprofessional and exposes you to potential discrimination. Hiring managers should focus solely on your professional qualifications—not personal details that are irrelevant to your ability to perform the job.
Information to avoid includes:
• Age or date of birth
• Marital status or family details
• Religious or political affiliations
• Personal social media handles
• Salary history or requirements
• Photographs (in most U.S. industries)
• Hobbies unrelated to the position
Focus your resume exclusively on professional qualifications. Include your name, professional email address, phone number, city/state, and relevant LinkedIn profile. If you want to include interests or hobbies, only mention those that demonstrate skills relevant to the position. For example, include "Volunteer coding instructor for underprivileged youth" for a software engineering role, but leave out your weekend hiking adventures unless they directly connect to the job requirements.
Remember that the purpose of your resume isn't to document everything you've ever done. It's to market yourself effectively for a specific position. When you craft it with precision and purpose, you transform it from a mere list of experiences into a powerful tool that showcases your unique value. Take this moment to set yourself apart. When you invest the time to create a resume free of these red flags, you're not just applying for a job—you're positioning yourself for success.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
OpenAI Can Stop Pretending
OpenAI is a strange company for strange times. Valued at $300 billion—roughly the same as seven Fords or one and a half PepsiCos—the AI start-up has an era-defining product in ChatGPT and is racing to be the first to build superintelligent machines. The company is also, to the apparent frustration of its CEO Sam Altman, beholden to its nonprofit status. When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it was meant to be a research lab that would work toward the goal of AI that is 'safe' and 'benefits all of humanity.' There wasn't supposed to be any pressure—or desire, really—to make money. Later, in 2019, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary to better attract investors—the types of people who might otherwise turn to the less scrupulous corporations that dot Silicon Valley. But even then, that part of the organization was under the nonprofit side's control. At the time, it had released no consumer products and capped how much money its investors could make. Then came ChatGPT. OpenAI's leadership had intended for the bot to provide insight into how people would use AI without any particular hope for widespread adoption. But ChatGPT became a hit, kicking 'off a growth curve like nothing we have ever seen,' as Altman wrote in an essay this past January. The product was so alluring that the entire tech industry seemed to pivot overnight into an AI arms race. Now, two and a half years since the chatbot's release, Altman says some half a billion people use the program each week, and he is chasing that success with new features and products—for shopping, coding, health care, finance, and seemingly any other industry imaginable. OpenAI is behaving like a typical business, because its rivals are typical businesses, and massive ones at that: Google and Meta, among others. Now 2015 feels like a very long time ago, and the charitable origins have turned into a ball and chain for OpenAI. Last December, after facing concerns from potential investors that pouring money into the company wouldn't pay off because of the nonprofit mission and complicated governance structure, the organization announced plans to change that: OpenAI was seeking to transition to a for-profit. The company argued that this was necessary to meet the tremendous costs of building advanced AI models. A nonprofit arm would still exist, though it would separately pursue 'charitable initiatives'—and it would not have any say over the actions of the for-profit, which would convert into a public-benefit corporation, or PBC. Corporate backers appeared satisfied: In March, the Japanese firm Softbank conditioned billions of dollars in investments on OpenAI changing its structure. Resistance came as swiftly as the new funding. Elon Musk—a co-founder of OpenAI who has since created his own rival firm, xAI, and seems to take every opportunity to undermine Altman— wrote on X that OpenAI 'was funded as an open source, nonprofit, but has become a closed source, profit-maximizer.' He had already sued the company for abandoning its founding mission in favor of financial gain, and claimed that the December proposal was further proof. Many unlikely allies emerged soon after. Attorneys general in multiple states, nonprofit groups, former OpenAI employees, outside AI experts, economists, lawyers, and three Nobel laureates all have raised concerns about the pivot, even petitioning to submit briefs to Musk's lawsuit. OpenAI backtracked, announcing a new plan earlier this month that would have the nonprofit remain in charge. Steve Sharpe, a spokesperson for OpenAI, told me over email that the new proposed structure 'puts us on the best path to' build a technology 'that could become one of the most powerful and beneficial tools in human history.' (The Atlantic entered into a corporate partnership with OpenAI in 2024.) Yet OpenAI's pursuit of industry-wide dominance shows no real signs of having hit a roadblock. The company has a close relationship with the Trump administration and is leading perhaps the biggest AI infrastructure buildout in history. Just this month, OpenAI announced a partnership with the United Arab Emirates and an expansion into personal gadgets—a forthcoming ' family of devices ' developed with Jony Ive, former chief design officer at Apple. For-profit or not, the future of AI still appears to be very much in Altman's hands. Why all the worry about corporate structure anyway? Governance, boardroom processes, legal arcana—these things are not what sci-fi dreams are made of. Yet those concerned with the societal dangers that generative AI, and thus OpenAI, pose feel these matters are of profound importance. The still more powerful artificial 'general' intelligence, or AGI, that OpenAI and its competitors are chasing could theoretically cause mass unemployment, worsen the spread of misinformation, and violate all sorts of privacy laws. In the highest-flung doomsday scenarios, the technology brings about civilizational collapse. Altman has expressed these concerns himself—and so OpenAI's 2019 structure, which gave the nonprofit final say over the for-profit's actions, was meant to guide the company toward building the technology responsibly instead of rushing to release new AI products, sell subscriptions, and stay ahead of competitors. 'OpenAI's nonprofit mission, together with the legal structures committing it to that mission, were a big part of my decision to join and remain at the company,' Jacob Hilton, a former OpenAI employee who contributed to ChatGPT, among other projects, told me. In April, Hilton and a number of his former colleagues, represented by the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, wrote a letter to the court hearing Musk's lawsuit, arguing that a large part of OpenAI's success depended on its commitment to safety and the benefit of humanity. To renege on, or at least minimize, that mission was a betrayal. The concerns extend well beyond former employees. Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist at the University of Toronto who last year received a Nobel Prize for his AI research, told me that OpenAI's original structure would better help 'prevent a super intelligent AI from ever wanting to take over.' Hinton is one of the Nobel laureates who has publicly opposed the tech company's for-profit shift, alongside the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Oliver Hart. The three academics, joining a number of influential lawyers, economists, and AI experts, in addition to several former OpenAI employees, including Hilton, signed an open letter in April urging the attorneys general in Delaware and California—where the company's nonprofit was incorporated and where the company is headquartered, respectively—to closely investigate the December proposal. According to its most recent tax filing, OpenAI is intended to build AGI 'that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,' so disempowering the nonprofit seemed, to the signatories, self-evidently contradictory. In its initial proposal to transition to a for-profit, OpenAI still would have had some accountability as a public-benefit corporation: A PBC legally has to try to make profits for shareholders alongside pursuing a designated 'public benefit' (in this case, building 'safe' and 'beneficial' AI as outlined in OpenAI's founding mission). In its December announcement, OpenAI described the restructure as 'the next step in our mission.' But Michael Dorff, another signatory to the open letter and a law professor at UCLA who studies public-benefit corporations, explained to me that PBCs aren't necessarily an effective way to bring about public good. 'They are not great enforcement tools,' he said—they can 'nudge' a company toward a given cause but do not give regulators much authority over that commitment. (Anthropic and xAI, two of OpenAI's main competitors, are also public-benefit corporations.) OpenAI's proposed conversion also raised a whole other issue—a precedent for taking resources accrued under charitable intentions and repurposing them for profitable pursuits. And so yet another coalition, composed of nonprofits and advocacy groups, wrote its own petition for OpenAI's plans to be investigated, with the aim of preventing charitable organizations from being leveraged for financial gain in the future. Regulators, it turned out, were already watching. Three days after OpenAI's December announcement of the plans to revoke nonprofit oversight, Kathy Jennings, the attorney general of Delaware, notified the court presiding over Musk's lawsuit that her office was reviewing the proposed restructure to ensure that the corporation was fulfilling its charitable interest to build AI that benefits all of humanity. California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, was reviewing the restructure, as well. This ultimately led OpenAI to change plans. 'We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,' Altman wrote in a letter to OpenAI employees earlier this month. The for-profit, meanwhile, will still transition to a PBC. The new plan is not yet a done deal: The offices of the attorneys general told me that they are reviewing the new proposal. Microsoft, OpenAI's closest corporate partner, has not yet agreed to the new structure. One could be forgiven for wondering what all the drama is for. Amid tension over OpenAI's corporate structure, the organization's corporate development hasn't so much as flinched. In just the past few weeks, the company has announced a new CEO of applications, someone to directly oversee and expand business operations; OpenAI for Countries, an initiative focused on building AI infrastructure around the world; and Codex, a powerful AI 'agent' that does coding tasks. To OpenAI, these endeavors legitimately contribute to benefiting humanity: building more and more useful AI tools; bringing those tools and the necessary infrastructure to run them to people around the world; drastically increasing the productivity of software engineers. No matter OpenAI's ultimate aims, in a race against Google and Meta, some commercial moves are necessary to stay ahead. And enriching OpenAI's investors and improving people's lives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The greater issue is this: There is no universal definition for 'safe' or 'beneficial' AI. A chatbot might help doctors process paperwork faster and help a student float through high school without learning a thing; an AI research assistant could help climate scientists arrive at novel insights while also consuming huge amounts of water and fossil fuels. Whatever definition OpenAI applies will be largely determined by its board. Altman, in his May letter to employees, contended that OpenAI is on the best path 'to continue to make rapid, safe progress and to put great AI in the hands of everyone.' But everyone, in this case, has to trust OpenAI's definition of safe progress. The nonprofit has not always been the most effective check on the company. In 2023, the nonprofit board—which then and now had 'control' over the for-profit subsidiary— removed Altman from his position as CEO. But the company's employees revolted, and he was reinstated shortly thereafter with the support of Microsoft. In other words, 'control' on paper does not always amount to much in reality. Sharpe, the OpenAI spokesperson, said the nonprofit will be able to appoint and remove directors to OpenAI's separate for-profit board, but declined to clarify whether its board will be able to remove executives (such as the CEO). The company is 'continuing to work through the specific governance mandate in consultation with relevant stakeholders,' he said. Sharpe also told me that OpenAI will remove the cap on shareholder returns, which he said will satisfy the conditions for SoftBank's billions of dollars in investment. A top SoftBank executive has said 'nothing has really changed' with OpenAI's restructure, despite the nonprofit retaining control. If investors are now satisfied, the underlying legal structure is irrelevant. Marc Toberoff, a lawyer representing Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, wrote in a statement that 'SoftBank pulled back the curtain on OpenAI's corporate theater and said the quiet part out loud. OpenAI's recent 'restructuring' proposal is nothing but window dressing.' Lessig, the lawyer who represented the former OpenAI employees, told me that 'it's outrageous that we are allowing the development of this potentially catastrophic technology with nobody at any level doing any effective oversight of it.' Two years ago, Altman, in Senate testimony, seemed to agree with that notion: He told lawmakers that 'regulatory intervention by governments will be critical to mitigate the risks' of powerful AI. But earlier this month, only a few days after writing to his employees and investors that 'as AI accelerates, our commitment to safety grows stronger,' he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be 'disastrous' for America's AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity.


Tom's Guide
2 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
Anthropic CEO claims AI will cause mass unemployment in the next 5 years — here's why
In recent months, multiple companies have taken strong stances on choosing AI over new employees, signalling a major change in the job market. And, according to one of AI's biggest CEOs, things are only going to get worse. In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said, 'AI is starting to get better than humans at almost all intellectual tasks, and we're going to collectively, as a society, grapple with it.' 'AI is going to get better at what everyone does, including what I do, including what other CEOs do.' Anthropic is the company behind Claude — one of the biggest and most popular AI models in the world right now. The company recently launched its latest version of the system, known as Claude 4 Sonnet and Opus. Our own testing (and comparisons against ChatGPT) convinced us Anthropic's newest model is one of the best AI systems to date. In a separate interview with Axios, Amodei explained his beliefs that AI tools could eliminate half of entry-level white collar jobs and boost unemployment to as much as 20% within the next five years. Experts and researchers have been telling us this for years now, so why is this any different? As the CEO of Anthropic, Amodei is right in the eye of the storm. While AI has already proved its abilities in creative formats like writing, as well as image and video generation, it's the next frontier that is concerning. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated that he wants AI to do half of Meta's coding by 2026 and Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella said as much as 30% of his company's code is currently being completed by AI. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. This is all part of AI's latest party trick. Across all of the major AI models, the ability to deal with code has grown exponentially. Not only can these models code based purely on prompts, but for those more experienced in programming, it can check through their work, drop in pre-made blocks and take on time-intensive tasks like debugging. This could render a large number of jobs in the coding industry obsolete, but also shows a movement of AI into complicated thought patterns, able to complete multiple steps in a tasks. During his interview, Amodei said Anthropic tracks the number of people who say they use its AI models to build on human jobs versus those entirely automating those jobs. This is something that has before held the system back from taking on more jobs, only able to complete tasks within the confines of a chatbot or generator. During his interview, Amodei said Anthropic tracks the number of people who say they use its AI models to build on human jobs versus those entirely automating those jobs. Currently, it's about 60% of people using AI for augmentation and 40% for automation. However, that replacement number is growing and it is a trend being seen in some of the largest companies like Shopify and Duolingo. With artificial intelligence tools expanding faster than regulators can move, it's highly likely this will become an ever-increasing topic for society to grapple with. In the midst of all of it, Amodei's advice for the average person is what you'd expect: learn to use AI.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case
By Jody Godoy WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Alphabet's Google and U.S. antitrust enforcers will make their final arguments on whether the tech giant should be forced to sell its Chrome browser or adopt other measures to restore competition in online search, as the blockbuster antitrust trial concludes on Friday. The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states are pressing to make Google not only sell Chrome, but also share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers and wireless carriers that set Google as the default search engine on new devices. The proposals aim to restore competition after a judge found last year that Google illegally dominates the online search and related advertising markets. Artificial intelligence companies could get a boost after already rattling Google's status as the go-to tool to find information online. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is overseeing the trial, which began in April. He has said he aims to rule on the proposals by August. If the judge does require Google to sell off Chrome, OpenAI would be interested in buying it, Nick Turley, OpenAI's product head for ChatGPT, said at the trial. OpenAI would also benefit from access to Google's search data, which would help it make responses to user inquiries more accurate and up to date, Turley said. Google says the proposals go far beyond what is legally justified by the court's ruling, and would give away its technology to competitors. The company has already begun loosening agreements with smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics to allow them to load rival search and AI products. The DOJ wants the judge to go farther, banning Google from making lucrative payments in exchange for installation of its search app. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data