A candidate applies with a CV that mirrors the job description. Their written responses are clear, confident and full of the right language. In a virtual interview, every answer sounds considered.

It could be an excellent candidate. It could also be someone relying heavily on AI to shape their application and feed them answers in real time. The challenge for employers isn’t to guess which one it is. It’s to find out whether the experience and capability behind the words are real.

I don’t think using AI to improve a CV is a problem. It can help people explain genuine experience more clearly. But there’s a difference between presenting your strengths well and presenting skills you can’t demonstrate. That difference is harder to see when both applications and virtual interviews can be supported by prompts. The Australian Public Service Commission’s guidance makes a similar distinction: assess the candidate’s demonstrated capability, not the polish of their application, and validate important claims through questions, practical assessment and references.



This is where a good recruitment professional adds value.

We don’t just scan for keywords or decide that a polished answer sounds convincing. We look at the detail behind it. What did the candidate personally do? Why did they make that decision? What happened when things didn’t go to plan? Can they talk through the same experience when the conversation moves away from a prepared answer?

A virtual interview can still reveal a great deal when it becomes a genuine conversation rather than a sequence of rehearsed questions. If someone describes leading a project, for example, I want to understand their contribution, the decisions they owned and what they learned. Then I want to see whether that account holds together across the interview, a relevant work task and a reference check. Targeted follow-ups and corroboration give us stronger evidence than a first impression alone.

Just as importantly, we need to be fair. A well-written CV is not proof of AI misuse, and a candidate who pauses to think is not necessarily reading a generated answer. Trying to “catch” AI from someone’s writing style or interview manner risks getting it wrong. The better approach is to give candidates a reasonable opportunity to show what they know and to check claims consistently.

AI has made it easier to sound like the right person for a role. It hasn’t made it easier to be that person. For employers, the value of a recruitment partner is no longer just getting through a stack of applications. It’s knowing which claims to explore, which questions to ask and how to distinguish a convincing presentation from capability that will stand up in the role.

That’s the part of recruitment we can’t afford to skip!