Dear Sam: Everywhere I look, people seem to be talking about AI and resume writing. Some people say everyone should be using it. Others insist recruiters hate it, but I have even seen articles suggesting candidates who do not use AI may actually be putting themselves at a disadvantage. What should job seekers believe? — Wondering
Dear Wondering: This is one of the most common questions I am receiving right now, and I suspect it will remain that way for quite some time.
The conversation is often framed as a debate about whether AI is good or bad, but I think the more important question is how it is being used and whether the person using it understands the difference between assistance and expertise.
Recent research suggests that nearly 70% of job seekers now use generative AI tools in some part of the job search process. Given how widely available these tools have become, that statistic does not surprise me at all. What has surprised me is the effect it is beginning to have on the resumes I review.
Over the past year, I have noticed that many resumes are becoming increasingly polished while simultaneously becoming increasingly similar. The documents often appear professional at first glance, but when I begin asking questions about the content, I frequently discover that the person behind the resume cannot fully explain why certain themes were emphasized, why particular accomplishments were highlighted, or why they are being positioned in a specific way. Eventually, many will admit that AI played a significant role in developing the content.
In some cases, I have found that the individual cannot fully explain or defend the very positioning language appearing on the page. That creates a problem because if a candidate cannot articulate the story their resume is telling, it becomes difficult to communicate that same story effectively during interviews.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that job seekers should avoid technology altogether. AI can be effective at organizing information, improving readability, identifying patterns, and helping candidates better understand the language employers are using in job postings. Used thoughtfully, it can be a valuable tool, but the problem begins when technology is asked to perform work that requires judgment, strategy, and self-awareness.
One of the things I have learned after more than two decades in this profession is that the strongest resumes are rarely distinguished by superior wording alone. Instead, they stand out because they demonstrate a clear understanding of what makes a person different from other candidates with similar backgrounds. They identify meaningful accomplishments, connect experiences into a cohesive story, and communicate value in a way that feels credible and authentic. AI-assisted resumes may sound impressive, but they often lack specificity, personalization, and the ability to understand what is truly most important about that candidate.
Recent employer research suggests that hiring teams are becoming increasingly concerned about their ability to verify and trust what they are reading. They are not necessarily frustrated that candidates are using technology, but frustrated by vague accomplishments, inflated positioning, repetitive language, and applications that feel increasingly interchangeable.
When everyone has access to tools capable of producing polished content, polished content becomes less of a differentiator. The professionals who stand out are the ones who understand their own stories, can articulate their value clearly, and support their claims with meaningful examples.
That is why I encourage candidates to focus less on whether AI is allowed and more on whether the final product genuinely reflects who they are. If someone removed all the impressive language from a resume, would the accomplishments still be compelling? Would the experience still be credible? Would the story still make sense? And perhaps most importantly, would you be telling YOUR story—or some version of the same story everyone else is telling?
