Job seekers are trying to game the application process using AI. It’s not working—and not for the reasons you might think.
Jodi Beggs’s résumé was penalized for being two pages long. She lost points for using her middle initial on one document but not another. Yet, simply changing the word "percent" to the "%" symbol boosted her score.
Beggs, a data scientist, received this feedback from an online tool designed to compare a job description with an applicant's materials to assess their compatibility. While she didn't specify which tool she used, the most well-known in this space is Jobscan.
“If my job is to please the robots,” Beggs says, “then even if I don't like AI-generated content, maybe the machines do.”
Tools like Jobscan operate on a widespread belief: hiring committees use AI to automatically rate and rank candidates within their Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS). The prevailing fear is that only the top 10 to 20 percent of applicants are actually seen, while the bottom 80 percent vanish into a digital void. To survive this filter, candidates feel compelled to tailor their formatting and pack their resumes with specific keywords to appease the algorithm.
The problem? This premise isn’t always true. While automated ranking happens in some organizations, many others still rely on humans to manage hiring from start to finish.
The Curse of the Applicant Tracking System
At its core, an ATS simply collects applications, helps hiring teams review them, and tracks candidates through the interview and onboarding process. Some advanced systems offer AI screening, but Daniel Chait, CEO of the ATS company Greenhouse, notes there is a lot of folklore surrounding these tools, particularly from the job seeker's perspective.
“No two ATSs are the same," Chait explains. "The technology changes fast, so an AI tool inside an ATS might work one way today and a different way tomorrow. Whether an ATS uses AI at all depends on the exact product and which features a team pays for and uses."
Regardless of the reality, as long as applicants *believe* AI is judging them, they will use AI to game the system. Putting the fate of your job search into the hands of a tool that claims it can optimize for an ATS is a shaky proposition. After all, one recruiter recently proved that despite having atrocious Jobscan scores, she still secured a dozen interviews and a job offer. Furthermore, with Jobscan costing up to $50 a month, the company isn't exactly incentivized to get you off the job market.
This dynamic creates a toxic feedback loop. Employers, overwhelmed by hundreds of identical-looking, AI-generated applications, feed them back into their ATS to quickly differentiate candidates.
“We've got this tragic situation where each side has a problem. They're using AI to solve their own problem, but in ways that make the problem worse," Chait says. "More AI use begets more AI use, to no one’s benefit. The more it’s happening, the worse it gets.”
Human Vetting vs. AI Filtering
Conversations with dozens of recruiters, HR managers, and small business owners reveal a divided landscape. The choice to use automated ranking seems driven less by company size or applicant volume, and more by corporate philosophy and culture.
Kim Jones, Vice President of Human Resources at Toshiba, insists on human review for every application. While she doesn't mind candidates using AI to polish their materials, she notes it won't help them bypass the ATS. "Culling applicants comes down to job requirements, salary expectations, and a few other factors, like whether the person would be a rehire," she says.
However, Jones has spotted unwanted AI usage during the interviewing stage: “You hear the pause, maybe hear the typing, then they come up with a verbose answer.”
Another company relying more on humans than technology is Doist, a small, fully remote company that hires internationally and is therefore flush with applications. Nadia Vatalidis, head of people at the company, decided to test the efficacy of AI shortlisting. Her team fed past job descriptions and applicant materials into an AI to see if it would select the same candidates they had actually hired.
The result? "In two instances that we tested, the person we hired wasn't in the short list," Vatalidis says. While there was some overlap in who got an interview, the AI missed the very people who ended up being their most successful new hires after six months on the job.
Using AI the Right Way
So, how should job seekers navigate this broken system?
When James Jacobsen started his job search five months ago, he spent the equivalent of a full-time job searching and applying. As a design professional, he knows AI can't match his creativity, but he used tools like Claude and ChatGPT to polish his application materials. It didn't move the needle.
Instead of just tweaking his resume, Jacobsen used AI to overhaul his entire job search workflow. He instructed his AI assistants to comb job listings, analyze descriptions, and log them. He built an elaborate scoring system based on work type, seniority, and salary requirements. His AI assistant highlighted the best opportunities and logged reasons for rejection, preventing him from reapplying to the same roles if they were reposted weeks later.
He effectively built a personalized tracking system—the exact opposite of an employer's ATS.
He didn't stop there. Jacobsen then asked the AI to critique his portfolio, resulting in a massive six-hour revamp. Two days later, he got a call from a prospective employer (though it hasn't resulted in an offer just yet). By shifting his focus, he spent less time searching and found higher-quality positions.
Breaking the Loop
Chait notes that candidates like Jacobsen are asking how they can possibly put in *more* effort, but emphasizes that "doing more of the same isn't the answer." The era of "spray-and-pray" applications is over.
Instead, Chait advises spending time researching target companies, even unconventional ones. As Toshiba's Kim Jones pointed out, cover letters are rare nowadays; submitting a thoughtful one makes a candidate stand out. Networking also remains an underrated, highly effective strategy in today's market.
Ultimately, Chait offers a comforting, if frustrating, final message for job seekers navigating this bleak landscape:
“It's not you; it’s the system, and it stinks.”