The CV has always been a useful insight into whether someone might be a good fit for a role. Spelling and grammar were often the first things a recruiter would notice, followed by the general use of language, how someone presented their experience and even the formatting. All of these things could provide clues about the person behind the CV and how they might approach their work.
For candidates working in a second language, the CV can be even more important. It is one of the first opportunities to demonstrate how effectively you can communicate in that language.
One of my first jobs in recruitment involved typing up handwritten CVs. Yes, handwritten. I would type them up, correct the odd spelling mistake, tidy things up and perhaps tweak the wording before sending they were sent to a potential employer. Looking back, I suppose I was doing a very primitive version of what AI can now do in seconds.
And this is where things get interesting.
Recruitment agencies have been "career-maxxing" CVs for decades. Spelling and grammar would be corrected, responsibilities clarified, irrelevant information removed and key skills highlighted. The aim was simple: when the CV landed on the client's desk, it presented the candidate in the best possible light.
So, what's really different about using AI to do the same thing?
With many companies now using Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to screen applications, there is certainly an argument for making sure your CV is clear, relevant and written in a way that both the system and, eventually, the human reading it can understand.
And there's the rub.
Does your rewritten CV still sound like you?
Or has the person it portrays become so polished, so perfectly aligned to the job description and so full of corporate-speak that, when you are invited to interview, you immediately fall at the first hurdle?
The difference with a CV rewritten by a good recruiter is that they have usually spoken to you first. They have understood your career, picked up on things that aren't necessarily obvious from your CV and worked out how your experience could potentially fit their client's requirements.
AI can rewrite your CV. It can't have that conversation with you unless you make the effort to have one.
So, should you use AI?
Yes. But use it as an editor rather than the author of your career.
Give AI your genuine experience and ask it to improve the structure, clarity and grammar. Give it the job description and ask it to identify which of your existing skills and experience are most relevant.
What I wouldn't do is simply ask AI to "write me a CV for this job" and copy and paste the result.
You may end up with a CV that sounds like everybody else's. Worse, AI has a habit of making everything sound rather more impressive than it needs to be. Suddenly, someone who helped manage a team becomes a "dynamic strategic leader driving transformational operational excellence".
If you can't comfortably explain it at interview, it probably shouldn't be on your CV.
And if English isn't your first language?
This is particularly important for multilingual candidates.
AI can be extremely useful for checking your English, improving sentence structure and helping you express your experience more clearly. But don't assume that making every sentence sound as though it was written by a native English speaking copywriter is necessarily a good thing.
If the role requires you to communicate in English, your CV is part of that assessment. An AI-polished CV might suggest a level of fluency that doesn't quite match how you communicate in person.
The aim isn't to make your English perfect. The aim is to make sure your experience is understood.
So use AI to help you communicate your skills, not to pretend you have skills you don't have.
Ultimately, I don't think AI makes the CV irrelevant. It just means we need to think a little harder about what we're using it for.
Let AI make your CV better. Just don't let it make you someone you're not.
