logo
The Algorithm Behind the Hire: What AI Is Doing to Entry-Level Recruitment

The Algorithm Behind the Hire: What AI Is Doing to Entry-Level Recruitment

A few months ago, I was talking to a recent college grad, bright kid, decent GPA, internships under his belt. He'd applied to 87 jobs.
Zero interviews.
'I'm not even sure anyone's reading my resume,' he said.
He's right to wonder.
Today, your resume doesn't land on someone's desk. It lands in a database, and before a human sees it, it gets filtered, scored, sorted, and sometimes discarded by software. By lines of code.
By AI.
We're in a new era of recruitment, especially for entry-level jobs, and we need to talk about it. Not with alarm, not with hype. But with honesty.
Here's what I've learned.
In the past, hiring started with a recruiter reading your resume and making a judgment. Now? It starts with a machine parsing it.
AI doesn't 'read' in the human sense. It parses. It extracts. It scans for words and patterns, skills, degrees, past job titles.
The algorithm does three things: Parses your resume (turns it into structured data)
(turns it into structured data) Scores it against job requirements
against job requirements Ranks it for the human recruiter
You could be a great fit. You could also be invisible, if you used the word 'collaborated' when the system was trained to look for 'teamwork.'
This shift makes resumes less about storytelling, more about searchability. Less Hemingway, more SEO.
Takeaway: Tailor your resume for machines first. Use the job description like a blueprint. Then, and only then, make it sound like you.
Companies love AI in hiring for good reason: it's efficient. Unilever reduced its time-to-hire by 75%. Vodafone automated 80% of its screening process.
But there's a catch.
AI learns from data. And data, like people, has biases. One study found that AI resume screeners favored white-associated names 85% of the time over Black or female-associated names, even when the resumes were identical.
That's not a glitch. That's a mirror.
Because AI reflects the world it's trained on, and our world isn't always fair.
Takeaway: The promise of 'objective' AI is only real when the training data is scrubbed of bias. Companies must audit their systems like they audit their finances: rigorously and often.
Imagine getting a job pitch from a chatbot. Not a cold template. A warm, tailored message that seems like it knows you.
That's already happening.
AI is now writing outreach emails, chatting with candidates, and even scheduling interviews. Tools like EachHire dig deep into extended networks to surface potential applicants. Others use GPT-style language models to engage at scale.
In theory, this means more personalization. In practice, it's weird. Because 'Hello, I read your blog on data ethics and thought you'd be a great fit for our open analyst role' hits different when you realize no human ever reads your blog.
Takeaway: If you're job hunting, don't assume a real person is on the other side of the screen. But treat every message as if one is, because that's what good AI tries to mimic.
Here's something no one tells recent grads: AI is doing your job already.
Not all of it. But enough to matter.
Tasks once handed to interns, market research, report building, copy drafting, are now delegated to ChatGPT or similar tools. Which means fewer 'foot-in-the-door' roles exist in their old form.
And that's not just a tech thing. It's a structural shift.
So if you're wondering why your resume isn't getting traction, part of the answer is this: the bottom rung of the ladder is being automated away.
Takeaway: Focus on skills AI can't fake, strategic thinking, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Don't try to beat AI. Learn how to work with it.
Yes, AI is taking the grunt work. But in doing so, it's also clearing space.
Instead of building Excel templates, you might be interpreting insights. Instead of drafting social copy, you might be refining AI outputs. The work itself is becoming more…human.
But that only happens if employers rethink how they train junior talent.
The old apprenticeship model, start small, build trust, is being compressed. And that can be disorienting. But it also means you could be presenting in your first team meeting at week two.
Not year two.
Takeaway: Step up early. Learn fast. Ask for feedback. You won't have the luxury of 'paying your dues' the old-fashioned way.
AI can save companies time and money, but not if it alienates talent, creates legal risk, or kills the brand.
So businesses face a different kind of challenge: how do we move faster without losing touch?
Here's what responsible companies are doing: Informing candidates when AI is used
Regularly auditing for bias
Using AI to assist, not replace, human judgment
When done right, AI enhances human decisions. When done wrong, it replaces them, and not for the better.
Takeaway: If you're in HR or recruiting, use AI as a co-pilot, not a captain.
One day soon, a hiring manager might strap on a VR headset, walk through a virtual job fair, and 'meet' candidates from three continents, all mediated by AI.
Sounds surreal. Maybe even dystopian.
But that doesn't mean it'll be soulless. Because the most effective hiring will still depend on something AI can't do:
Feel.
Feel whether a candidate's story resonates. Feel the conviction in their voice. Feel whether they belong, not based on data, but on instinct, on care, on humanity.
Takeaway: The algorithm might get you in the room. But it's your story, your presence, that gets you hired.
We're at a strange inflection point.
AI is transforming entry-level hiring faster, smarter, and more scalable. But in doing so, it's also testing what we value: speed vs. fairness, volume vs. nuance, signals vs. substance.
If you're a job seeker: optimize your resume, yes. But don't let the machine define you. Lead with who you are, not just what you've done.
If you're a business, embrace the tools. But remember, the hire you make today isn't just a headcount. It's a human.
And humans aren't just data points. We're stories.
Tell a good one.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market

Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on

Committee explores nuclear solutions to AI demand
Committee explores nuclear solutions to AI demand

E&E News

time30 minutes ago

  • E&E News

Committee explores nuclear solutions to AI demand

House Science, Space and Technology Committee lawmakers will meet this week to discuss how nuclear energy could help meet a projected surge in demand from artificial intelligence operations. The Energy Subcommittee hearing — to be led by Chair Randy Weber (R-Texas) — continues Republicans' early focus and significant concern regarding supply and demand in the 119th Congress. They believe baseload energy sources, such as nuclear and fossil fuels, need to be built at a rapid pace to offset a surge in intermittent, renewable energy generation that could put grid reliability at risk. Indeed, transmission providers are forecasting an 8.2 percent growth in electricity load over the next five years primarily due to AI data center proliferation. That's equivalent to hooking up nearly 50 million homes to the grid by 2029. Advertisement But whether nuclear energy can actually meet that demand remains a point of debate among energy and policy experts.

Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death
Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

Claude's blog is no more. A week after TechCrunch profiled Anthropic's experiment to task the company's Claude AI models with writing blog posts, Anthropic wound down the blog and redirected the address to its homepage. Sometime over the weekend, the Claude Explains blog disappeared — along with its initial few posts. A source familiar tells TechCrunch the blog was a "pilot" meant to help Anthropic's team combine customer requests for explainer-type "tips and tricks" content with marketing goals. Claude Explains, which had a dedicated page on Anthropic's website and was edited for accuracy by humans, was populated by posts on technical topics related to various Claude use cases (e.g. 'Simplify complex codebases with Claude'). The blog, which was intended to be a showcase of sorts for Claude's writing abilities, wasn't clear about how much of Claude's raw writing was making its way into each post. An Anthropic spokesperson previously told TechCrunch that the blog was overseen by "subject matter experts and editorial teams" who 'enhance[d]' Claude's drafts with 'insights, practical examples, and […] contextual knowledge.' The spokesperson also said Claude Explains would expand to topics ranging from creative writing to data analysis to business strategy. Apparently, those plans changed in pretty short order. "[Claude Explains is a] demonstration of how human expertise and AI capabilities can work together,' the spokesperson told TechCrunch earlier this month. "[The blog] is an early example of how teams can use AI to augment their work and provide greater value to their users. Rather than replacing human expertise, we're showing how AI can amplify what subject matter experts can accomplish." Claude Explains didn't get the rosiest reception on social media, in part due to the lack of transparency about which copy was AI-generated. Some users pointed out it looked a lot like an attempt to automate content marketing, an ad tactic that relies on generating content on popular topics to serve as a funnel for potential customers. More than 24 websites were linking to Claude Explains posts before Anthropic wound down the pilot, according to search engine optimization tool Ahrefs. That's not bad for a blog that was only live for around a month. Anthropic might've also grown wary of implying Claude performs better at writing tasks than is actually the case. Even the best AI today is prone to confidently making things up, which has led to embarrassing gaffes on the part of publishers that have publicly embraced the tech. For example, Bloomberg has had to correct dozens of AI-generated summaries of its articles, and G/O Media's error-riddled AI-written features — published against editors' wishes — attracted widespread ridicule. This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store