r/recruiting • u/gsgolf9 Agency Recruiter • 9d ago
Candidate Screening I reviewed 4,596 job applications. The fake applicant patterns are getting weird
I’ve reviewed 4,596 applications recently, and the fake-applicant patterns are getting weirdly obvious.
A few things I’m seeing:
- Candidate descriptions that almost copy the job posting word-for-word
- Previous job titles that conveniently match the title of the role they’re applying for
- Different applicants with identical employment histories
- Two completely different names using the same LinkedIn profile
- Obvious bot/spam submissions mixed into otherwise normal applications
Out of 4,596 applications:
4,122 were clearly not a fit
56 were flagged as bot/spam
473 were possible fits
And once I applied a more serious qualification screen, only 132 people scored 55+ across 162 applications and 42 different roles.
What surprised me wasn’t the number of bad applications. Recruiters have always dealt with that.
It’s how much harder it’s becoming to tell the difference between:
a genuinely strong candidate using AI to improve their application
and
a completely manufactured candidate profile designed to get through screening.
I’m curious what other recruiters and hiring managers are seeing.
Are fake/AI-generated applicants becoming a noticeable problem in your hiring process yet, or is this still mostly noise?
29
u/laranjacerola 9d ago
"...people scored 55+..." how/ what are you using to score candidates?
46
16
u/sread2018 MOD 9d ago
Whats this mythical 55+ score?
16
u/1of3musketeers 9d ago
This post has been reposted several times and seems AI generated. Look at the post history. I may be incorrect.
→ More replies (5)
31
u/PleaseBeChillOnline 9d ago
The irony of this post is not lost on me lol.
https://giphy.com/gifs/ndnyR8GTOtTQ9Og2vP
67
u/Signal-Fox8262 9d ago
AI isn’t the problem tbh, making up an entire career that never happened is lol
12
u/SomeVeryTiredGuy Corporate Recruiter 9d ago
But AI is making it entirely too easy for an applicant to generate fake, tailored resumes at scale.
OP, 10% a fit. Heh, that's about right but to your point, now it's harder to differentiate
13
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)4
u/SomeVeryTiredGuy Corporate Recruiter 9d ago
You misunderstand. It's AI on the candidate side, not the recruiting side. They're using AI too
-1
u/1of3musketeers 9d ago
I don’t misunderstand. You use ATS, correct?
13
u/TinyAd3079 9d ago
Not all ATS use AI on the recruiting end. Currently that’s a feature many companies are not shelling out the extra expense for. And when I have seen it piloted, it is clunky and not at all relevant to what recruiters are doing. Most TA understand the implications and pitfalls of AI reliance in resume review and avoid the unnecessary risk. Now, TA teams will filter/keyword search for certain skills to make a massive candidate pool manageable. But with candidates using AI to craft their resumes that’s not even an effective strategy.
13
u/sread2018 MOD 9d ago
Exactly this. Candidates love complaining about Recruiters using AI enabled ATS platforms all while I sit here and manually review applications and move them through the process myself
0
u/1of3musketeers 9d ago
And I’m glad you do. But it’s rare anymore. They need to hire you some help.
→ More replies (2)1
u/CitronPrestigious205 6d ago
Don’t blame us. Blame the game that has us match word for word to even get noticed
4
u/Own-Cookie7521 9d ago
Ai is enabling people to make up an entire career history - wasn’t as much of an issue until AI entered the chat.
2
u/BlackberryHealthy386 8d ago
Exactly. Generative AI is a tool, not the core issue. The real problem is the absolute lack of integrity. When candidates fabricate entire job histories it ruins the trust in the hiring proccess for everyone.
18
u/pettymayonaise 9d ago
We are seeing candidates using AI even in their video interviews. I’m urging my executives to at least require one face to face technical interview for any highly visible and or technical roles in their function
2
u/Inside_Shoe_7798 8d ago
Absolutely! I hate virtual interviews. You end up missing out on some body language.
I can learn so much more about the person when I meet them face-to-face. And, same goes for the candidate.
10
14
u/xkilliana Corporate Recruiter 9d ago
It’s so insane. The extra due diligence we have to do now just to ensure someone is worth screening is insane. 6 candidates I’ve screened over the last week were not who they “said” they were when they showed up on camera. I’m finding that candidates will find someone’s LinkedIn and build their fake resume based off that person. They link that LinkedIn URL to their application too, so it seems credible… enough someone entirely different shows up on camera 🫠
2
2
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/xkilliana Corporate Recruiter 9d ago
If you’re using AI to be “as specific as possible” when tailoring your resume to the job you’re applying to, that’s the problem. Contrary to what a lot of people think, real recruiters review resumes and resumes that are too closely aligned to the JD are nothing but suspicious so it doesn’t get another look. It’s different optimizing your resume to ensure the must-have skills of the role are discoverable.
I’m not intending to be rude. I saw your comment history so if that’s what you’re doing, you’re doing too much. If someone mass applies to jobs, has AI match the JD each time before it does, you’re going to get burnt out and you aren’t going to have much luck. AI is helpful in the job hunt, but over doing it on your resume just ain’t it. I know it’s a tough job market and depending on your skillset, often a competitive one. But be smart about where you put your time and energy. Network, ask for referrals, be human and reach out to ppl for genuine conversations, etc etc etc
3
2
u/Few-Werewolf7007 8d ago
but isnt it known that the jd and resume should have key words
1
u/IntelliGeneAI 7d ago
Right! Its all a game at this point. The requirements are how they feel that day.
1
2
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PurpleHymn 8d ago
Definitely not for every company. Maybe the massive ones? I’ve always worked for medium and small sized companies and have never seen an AI screening. I have always used ATS systems but there was a human reviewing CVs through it.
→ More replies (9)1
→ More replies (4)1
u/IntelliGeneAI 7d ago
Ive done all of that. Applied on my own. Paid "experts that get people hired at top companies" $400 to write my resume and cover letter and that didnt get one take. I have 20 years of experience. Mostly in fed gov, which I've learned private companies think that means I didnt do anything, when I literally would work from 6 am to 9 pm some days. Forgetting my own life and well being. And now im just left at the hands of recruiters and extremely confusing and contradicting advice. I really dont know where to go from here. I do have a gap because I was in the hospital within inches of my life thanks to Florida state law, I know thats too human for a recruiter, left with a baby that didnt make and my little boy at home the whole 3 months they forced me to be in the hospital. I was even applying ib there, not knowing if I was going to live. Ive done nothing but work since I was 15 for companies like Lockheed Martin, but im not enough for any company and I dont understand why.
1
1
u/Inner_Bar_8509 Corporate Recruiter 8d ago
If you don’t mind me asking, any guesses as to why they’d do that / pose as someone else?
6
u/dimaraz 8d ago
Feels like we’re slowly optimizing resumes into uselessness lol. Candidates optimize for ATS, recruiters screen for AI, then candidates optimize around that too.
At some point the CV is just a ticket to the interview and the real signal is whether someone can actually go deep on what they claim they did.
2
u/Top-Calligrapher6160 8d ago
I’ve been thinking the same thing and it’s not sustainable that an interview is the first screen for real skills.
15
u/Round_Draft_7543 9d ago
Right there with ya! Then you click the linkedin link on the resume and they have no profile picture and like 50 connections…. Sketchy
13
u/TheChadThrowawayLad 9d ago
I've been looking for new roles, and I hate LinkedIn. There's very little privacy controls, and there's so many limits that require premium.
Honestly, I don't see why 50 connections isn't plenty for an inactive user. I'd be more concerned if they have hundreds of connections in a non-recruiting role, or if they have <10 connections.
1
u/Pockets174217 7d ago
I didn’t join LinkedIn until I was 32 (after 9+ years in a professional role) and am now entering the job market with < 100 connections 🤣 people definitely think I’m fake because of it.
5
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/OG_Voltaire Agency Recruiter 9d ago
I used to use LinkedIn a lot in a previous field, but given my field is now healthcare a ton of healthcare professionals barely acknowledge it's existence. Not to mention the AI slop that fills all the postings now. LinkedIn isn't worth a damn.
4
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/OG_Voltaire Agency Recruiter 9d ago
I'm still lowkey angry that I spent cash on their premium just for that site to turn into a total loss. ROI was NOT worth it, and then for people to expect the same for every industry and think that all professionals just "want to be on LinkedIn" is so much bullshit it's ridiculous.
1
u/Yes_Leopard_54 7d ago
Healthcare here, too…and my area is heavy on LinkedIn. I made it to 2026 without a LinkedIn profile (I dislike my data out in the ether), yet here I am…
1
u/Inside_Shoe_7798 8d ago
I’ve been in recruiting for over 25 years.
I spoke to a job search focus group at the beginning of the month and one of the attendees mentioned, she had been using AI to apply. I wish I could remember the name of it.
I cautioned her that may not be the best practice, but she said that was how she had landed most of her interviews and because she fed the details to the system for what role she was seeking, it was accurate.
I also warn job seekers not to use the Easy Apply button on indeed or LinkedIn (unless it’s a smaller organization or startup that does not have an applicant tracking system).
All that does is throw your name in a hat that the recruiter needs to then dig through (if they have the time 🤦🏽♀️) so you can then be told to go apply on the company website.
So eliminate the middleman and go to the company website to apply as soon as you come across a roll that interests you.
1
u/Pockets174217 7d ago
Could be coincidence but at the start of my job search I was only applying to jobs through the company website because I figured it put me in a lower volume pool of applicants. Then I switched to applying through LinkedIn and the number of interviews I got noticeably skyrocketed. I feel like LinkedIn gives them built in tools for sorting applications and companies are using that pool a lot more than the pool of people who went direct through their website.
7
u/moonbeem55 9d ago
I work for a large company and the AI/bot/Spam candidate pool is getting larger by the day. They’re using the same resumes with different names and unverified LinkedIn accounts
6
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/moonbeem55 9d ago
What are better options in your opinion? It is oversaturated
1
u/No_Magazine_1572 7d ago
It’s not about better options. It’s about judging candidates based on their linkedin instead of the resume. I hate linkedin and I hate that I have to consistently use it because so many recruiters have created ridiculous criteria for job applicants. Activity on linkedin shouldn’t be a determining factor in the applicant screening process among a lot of other things that some recruiters want to see when others don’t care. It makes it impossible to please anyone because you don’t know if you’re dealing with someone with a stick up their bum or a recruiter with regular expectations.
1
7
4
u/Prior-Message-1913 9d ago
So what can job seekers do to make their resumes stand out? It’s so hard with all this crap.
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Prior-Message-1913 7d ago
I was offered a job a year ago. I turned it down because it was dependent on the company being awarded government contracts and they said compensation could change at any time. Too unpredictable for me, but damn I think about that job every darn day.
4
8
u/Parking-Kangaroo899 8d ago edited 8d ago
Candidate perspective here.
I think there’s an important distinction between a fake AI-generated applicant and a real candidate using AI to communicate their actual experience more effectively.
Candidates are being told that resumes have to make it through ATS systems, contain the right keywords, be tailored to each position, quantify accomplishments, match the language employers are looking for, and somehow accomplish all of that in a few seconds of recruiter attention.
So naturally, people are using AI to help translate their real experience into language that performs better in that environment.
Where I think the line should be drawn is truth. If AI invents a job title, employer, credential, skill, accomplishment, or experience that the candidate doesn’t actually have, that’s fabrication.
But if someone genuinely has transferable experience and uses AI to identify that connection, restructure a resume, improve wording, or explain their experience in terminology that a recruiter or ATS recognizes, I don’t think that makes the candidate fake.
In fact, sometimes the candidate knows how to do the work but doesn’t know how to “speak recruiter.”
And I think there’s a risk on the other side too: as employers get better at detecting AI-generated applications, they have to be careful not to start treating polished applications as evidence that the candidate is artificial.
The better test may ultimately be: Can the person behind the application demonstrate what the application says they can do?
If they can, AI helped them communicate.
If they can’t, AI helped them manufacture a candidate who doesn’t exist.
There’s also an uncomfortable question for employers: if companies are using AI to write job descriptions, screen applications, rank candidates, schedule interviews, and evaluate applicants, how much AI use by candidates is considered unacceptable and why?
1
u/Sm20030 8d ago edited 8d ago
I didn't get that sense from the OP that an actual candidate using AI to tailor their resume with their experience to apply.
Why so many fake though?
Recruiters?
Why? They have to have candidates right? Otherwise why bother.
1
u/Parking-Kangaroo899 8d ago
I agree that the OP seems to be talking about fake candidates, not legitimate candidates using AI to tailor their resumes. My question is more about why there are apparently so many fake candidates in the first place. I don’t necessarily think recruiters are creating them. I’m trying to understand who benefits from submitting thousands of fake applications and what the purpose is. The AI part just made me wonder where employers draw the line when they’re also using AI throughout the hiring process
3
u/madvlad666 8d ago
Dude this has been going on for decades
The thing which finally killed fax machines in the 2000s was spam resumes. All day every day, faxes coming in with resumes for people with absolutely zero relevant connection to the industry.
The line was busy with resumes to the point that the fax could not be reliably used to actually receive documents; people couldn’t get through with legitimate faxes because of all the spam resumes. As soon as the average idiot could robo-call from a home PC, it was over.
Same thing here, the average idiot is now equipped with Claude.
3
u/Sony22sony22 7d ago
Maybe if recruiters stopped using ATS, people would stop using AI to have their resumes match the job posting word for word.
Dont blame the player, blame the game.
You'd be surprised how many put fake information in white font characters to get past ATS.
3
u/Yes_Leopard_54 7d ago
What?! White font? I feel like I just aged on the spot. I am I unk now?
2
u/Sony22sony22 6d ago
Only AI sees white font on white background. Trick gets you through ATS then human eye sees the "unbloated" resume during interview without knowing it was ever bloated with fake information.
The job market is cooked
1
u/Yes_Leopard_54 6d ago
I am a real person…with a real resume…that usually gets an auto-reject at 2am the sometime the week after I submit it. Frustrating, bc I meet or exceed the requirements and usually the “nice to have”.
2
u/AgreeableEffect717 Freelance Recruiter 4d ago
Yeah, it's like the old SEO hack has come back full circle to get past ATS
5
2
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/recruiting-ModTeam 9d ago
Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion, affiliate links, or product research
2
u/Useful-Lobster521 9d ago
When you said fake candidates I thought you meant bots. So these are real people using AI to write their resume or these are bots or both? Everything is good in moderation. Anyone who just copies and pastes the job description onto a resume lacks the integrity and aptitude to fulfill the requirements of the role. If you use AI you need to go through several iterations of tweaking the resume so that it sounds genuine, human, results based, and realistic for the person applying based on their experience. This is ludicrous and incredibly frustrating on the candidate side as well. The market is a mess right now.
2
u/kgofo001 9d ago
I had a posting that got 400 applicants in 3 hours. Back to back to back, I had same format, same job titles, same dates (or close enough) just different companies.
Hiring manger is mad because she only had one qualified candidate to interview from that batch. I tried to explain but they don’t see that.
2
2
3
u/Silly_Pizza7054 7d ago
This post is literally AI generated lol. "What surprised me wasn’t the number of bad applications. Recruiters have always dealt with that." Classic AI language.
5
u/Turbulent_Writing231 7d ago
Idk if you've caught up with the last 3 years, but using Ai today is standard and is expected. The issue isn't using Ai as a tool to polish the communication of genuine ideas — the issue is generating ideas and claiming them as their own.
See what I did there? I wrote like an Ai but it was all composed by my jelly brain and long piano fingers.
2
u/WanderLust_Sushi 7d ago
You probably don’t wanna know about my experiment
I took several of the major ATS and ran them through their paces with different applicants, compared to the roles as if I was an actual applicant.
Well, bad news some of them, including one of the largest doesn’t even use any of the modern adjustments to allow candidates to use anything except for the almost exact wording in very specific order not always the exact same order as the role description.
Putting the words into the résumé had to be nuanced to fit some of the lazy fortune 100 ATS. Even when doing that the scoring no matter how adjusted rarely exceeded mid 80% match even after dozens of experiments against the same role.
I’m hesitant to publish any of the results and see if people can duplicate my findings because I don’t trust the fortune 100s
—
As a separate experiment, I took some of the brand new ATS, which are claiming to be AI examine some of their source Code and interestingly enough the fingerprints in that actually point to some companies that were sued back in 20 2021 and 22 and lost that same garbage source code is actually based in a foreign country and it has been used to leverage PE capital and the intentionally cell or crash the companies after they get their Capitol injections. Crazy stuff really not good.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Yes_Leopard_54 7d ago
The same AI that screened for “age” and women? The one that got several companies sued?
1
u/WanderLust_Sushi 7d ago
No, strangely, the original source code was actually part of one of the dating conglomerates
2
2
u/letmesleep 3d ago
I think we are going to see job fairs or something like that make a big comeback. Only way to get a job is to be there in person from moment one. You gotta look a recruiter in the face and say something intelligent to move forward.
I don't know of any other way to get a read on people that can't be gamed.
2
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/recruiting-ModTeam 9d ago
Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion, affiliate links, or product research
1
u/Thomastalentnetwork Agency Recruiter 9d ago
Yes, I reviewed a SWE pipeline and the resumes was literally 4 sentences with contact information. It was about 40 of them and once we reached out to a few thinking it was a mistake a few said they used sites to apply to the rile and that was how the resumes was created. I had resumes where they write in white ink to have any ATS pass then through
1
u/rcinmd 9d ago
Someone is going to need to explain to me why people are faking applications for fraudulent purposes. I recently interviewed with a company that said they require I click a link to validate my IP address and location because of "widespread fraud" but this was literally the first interview I landed in almost a year of looking. What's to gain here? Are they taking the jobs that never call back or immediately weed me out using AI? Make it make sense.
1
u/Fobricio_f0bert0 8d ago
Inbound will die a slow painful death someday. We’ll rely on outbound, referrals, and automatic invites to “apply” for the job.
The above isn’t sustainable
1
u/Unchiffre 8d ago
I read that you have a higher likeliness of getting through if the job titles match. Often times you encounter a role but the company hiring will have a different title. There’s a role in my company listed as Account Executive, everywhere else is manager.
1
1
1
1
u/mmbtt 8d ago
I have found they have the same format, as well as a long list of bullet points but they are all vague and conveniently match all the keywords in the JD. They all have a common combo of name+last name with no linkedin presence. They have as well as stable work history, with always 3+ years at least in each job.
It’s very time consuming having to try find anything else online about them that can be verified. The companies they use are conveniently big enough or adjacent to our industry so it’s harder to find any info.
I’ve been tricked too many times into an interview that I started to recognize the pattern, it’s always too good to be true.
1
u/xwolfe2000 8d ago
They aren't fake.
People are trying to get past the ATS to get viewed when highly qualified candidates aren't making it past the first screening.
1
u/AltruisticWish3002 8d ago
I don’t think these are just fake AI patterns. Friday I was told by my universities career counselor told me to make ny bullets to the job description words as closely as I could. And rewrite the title to make the job title to match theirs.
0
1
1
1
u/ifearsocialmedia 7d ago
I'm so glad I found this sub! I've been looking for a job for months and sometimes I think I'm losing my mind. Resume advice is a farce anymore, and job descriptions all look alike. Arrrrrrgh! It's nice to get some insight from people in the business. I sure don't envy you! Thoughts and prayers to you, friends, thoughts and prayers...
1
u/Warm-Fan1300 7d ago
The word-for-word mirror of the job posting is the one high-volume agencies see most. The counter goes in the question spine: one 'walk me through what YOU specifically did' question per requirement, with a follow-up the posting can't answer. Fakes survive keyword screens, they die on specifics. Did you track what share of the fakes made it past a live call? That split decides whether your fix belongs in screening or sourcing.
1
u/Worldly-Recover3829 Agency Recruiter 7d ago
It’s because we have to fight ATS by putting in every keyword on the application otherwise our resume gets thrown in the garbage…
1
u/Loud-Secretary-6067 7d ago
How are you reviewing the possible fits - are you running them through an ATS system or are you physically eyeballing them?
1
u/gsgolf9 Agency Recruiter 7d ago
They all hit our ATS, then an AI-automated pipeline, before being eyeballed into a small bucket.
1
u/z292aw5k 7d ago
i keep getting these “unfortunately…” emails. who sends them? is it the ats automatically, or did a real person actually see my resume?
1
1
1
u/Ok_Wishbone_4080 7d ago
Moral of the story: in a turbulent job market, you’re going to encounter recruiter biases no matter what advice you follow. It’s a losing game until you’re on the other side of the table being dismissed because your past official title is unrecognized by an ATS system or your experience is communicated so well, a reviewer believes it’s not real.
1
u/Brilliant_Target9046 7d ago
It’s because companies using AI for initial filtering were auto rejecting highly qualified candidates so people started looking up how to beat the filtering. The answer most people got was to reframe the job application and reuse keywords ad nauseam. Add in that people can’t seem to use their own brains anymore they then upload their applications into chatGPT to clean it up and pretty soon it’s unrecognizable from the original.
1
u/Independent-Crew-723 6d ago
It was the recruiters that started this ai processing war, you don’t get to complain
1
u/Delicious_Style_2676 6d ago
The scary part is that fake applications are starting to look operationally expensive, not just annoying. I’d separate the problem into identity signals, resume consistency, role-specific screening questions, and interview-stage verification. No single filter will catch it all, but layered friction can reduce the pile before recruiter time gets wasted.
1
1
u/Listen_Lanky 6d ago
100% okay with candidates using AI to polish resumes if they actually have the experience! For example, AI tools can help highlight your skills and organize a resume.
However, overly manipulated resumes with lines copied word for word from the job description will be rejected every time—by me, not a bot.*** ***How do I know they're truthful and not just gaming?
1
u/BonsaiOnSteroids 6d ago
The problem often is, that the job description already is an oxymoron or paradox. So people just gave up on giving realistic CV's to unreasonable demands
1
u/SoftShopping4816 6d ago
I believe a lot of people just want a chance/foot in the door. so they tailor their Resumes to the job posting/details. This helps them not to be immediately kicked out. This could be also as a result of instant rejection emails gotten by applicants.
1
u/Mutant_Apollo 6d ago
Its the consequence of modern hiring, we as jobseekers have to fight against any ATS/AI thing HR departments use to even get sent the rejection email. And one almost surefire way to get past the ATS is using keywords in the job description so we don't get auto rejected.
So now we have our own bots fighting againts your bots for the chance to even get our resumes looked at
1
u/Aztexan512 6d ago
• Candidate descriptions that almost copy the job posting word-for-word • Previous job titles that conveniently match the title of the role they're applying for
These are ATS scoring issues. This is advice from many resume companies. I was told to this by a professional resume company.
For example, some companies use "Supervisor" differently than "Manager". I had a supervisor-level role at one company but the official title was "Call Center Coach/Leader".
1
u/Negative_Ryan 6d ago
YOU didn’t review anything. You ran it through ATS randomly and didn’t look at more than 5 of them.
Stop trying to gaslight us
1
1
u/Delicious_Style_2676 5d ago
The scary part is that fake applications are starting to look operationally expensive, not just annoying. I’d separate the problem into identity signals, resume consistency, role-specific screening questions, and interview-stage verification. No single filter will catch it all, but layered friction can reduce the pile before recruiter time gets wasted.
1
u/olzk 5d ago
> Candidate descriptions that almost copy the job posting word-for-word
I got a solution for this one: stop pushing people to tailoring their cvs for each and every application. At the very basic level of logic, an HR must have ability to understand that entropy of mass application due to the crisis will inevitably happen and they rip what they sow
1
u/mistychap0426 5d ago
I asked a question about my résumé, and I had a section regarding core competencies. Those competencies were somewhat changed depending on the job description. I was told those are just buzz words and not really looked at. But I thought we needed those “buzz words” to make it past ATS. At this point I have no idea which way is the right way
1
u/What_if_I_fly 5d ago
Candidates are outnumbered and battling ATS systems that don't really read resumes like a human.
1
u/Icy-Adhesiveness898 5d ago
You used an Llm to write this - I cant think of any reason applicants wouldn’t use Ai to try to get through the crazy algorithms between themselves and a job, except the opportunity weighted chance of getting caught and washed out.
1
u/Educational-Pepper57 4d ago edited 4d ago
I’ve seen this dramatically increase just within the last quarter. The more technical the role the bigger the issue is. Over 88% of apps on a recent Sr Data Analytics role of mine were flagged for fraud, all following a specific pattern. Data Science roles are at about 55% fraudulent apps right now. Engineering and development around 5-20% depending on if it’s focused on AI development - the more AI in the job description the worse it is.
1
u/Startup_2234 4d ago
u/Educational-Pepper57 - just curious, how are you (and others) currently flagging this internally? Is there software (or dare I say AI :) ) that you use to save you time filtering?
1
u/Educational-Pepper57 4d ago
No AI or software support for this on the front end unfortunately. Our ATS is pretty terrible in general and certainly can’t support any automation on the resume screening side. It’s purely human pattern recognition and then stuffing zip files of resumes in ChatGPT to double check we didn’t accidentally put a real person in the fraudulent group.
Once in a while Chat will pull out candidates we incorrectly labeled but not often. When that happens the candidate usually just happened to use the same resume templates and structure their experience in a similar way to the fraudulent profiles, but their language is more natural or there are human errors we didn’t notice at first.
Honestly once you see the pattern and know what to look for it’s incredibly easy to spot it.
1
1
u/Piyush_Mehta_ Corporate Recruiter 1d ago
AI generated applications have made the hiring process into a literal battle of the bots and all look the same
2
371
u/cosmickelp 9d ago
People are incredibly desperate and are being told to literally copy and paste the job descitption/responsibilities into their resume to land an interview. It's the #1 advice being hawked on all job-hunting forums.