I Asked AI To Roast My CV Like A Stranger Would. It Found The One Thing Every Recruiter Was Too Polite To Say.
I've been job hunting for a while now and I have already gone through the usual rounds, got friends looking at my CV, a few recruiters critiquing bits of it, all kind of generally pleasant and surprisingly kind on both fronts. "Looks solid." "Just tweak this sentence." All pleasant and really not particularly helpful.
One evening, slightly out of morbid curiosity and mostly to kill time (I was procrastinating, admittedly), I decided to feed my CV into one of the various AIs now available and just instructed it to be as blunt as possible, no niceties at all, and tell me what any random, stressed-out hiring manager flicking through 400 CVs in a rush is likely to notice or pick up within the first ten seconds. Didn't expect anything much apart from some bland and repetitive advice I'd already received.
However, what came back was unnervingly specific in many ways that none of my human reviewers, particularly the professional ones, had or ever would mention just because you and I can see each other's faces and humans are nice to humans even if the other person has no clue what they're on about.
The response I received was basically "it could have been written by any single person with your title and explains absolutely nothing about me that isn't already explained by having that title." Reading it back from that perspective: it was 100% true. It was three fairly vague and utterly bland sentences on something thousands of people include on their CVs year in and year out. And my CV hadn't changed for the past four years without anyone noticing.
The reason a human hasn't done this is probably that it's harsh to tell a mate their first sentence or two is rubbish (even if I gave them a direct instruction to do so!). Recruiters are trying not to alienate you either so they try to tread lightly and be encouraging and they definitely don't want you walking out with no good fee either. An AI tool has no agenda.
No relationship to placate.
And that actually makes the feedback surprisingly useful.
The tool I used highlighted it and explained that while the first half had covered exactly what the project was, there was so much jargon related to it that the actual outcome had basically been totally overlooked, the whole reason for doing it. Lots of detail, then. Little substance.
On reflection this was entirely correct.
I knew the project so well that I forgot someone reading my CV for the first time hadn't experienced that journey, so therefore I didn't tell them why any of it mattered and used lots of waffle.
After my first rewrite it included the actual measurable outcome (and I only did it now after realising that no one could see that detail from my first attempt.) A small change, but the entry suddenly looked entirely different.
Anything industry related and a bit complicated is out of the realm of what it has been trained on properly so things like technical jargon need proper checks against your specific field and personal experience.
It suggested a specific word that, when used in my job profile, would have made me sound like I knew nothing of my chosen profession. That was scary so check any specific terminology meticulously.
The key here is that it was brilliant at picking out the more vague aspects. Things like my personal statement which looked good until I compared it, side-by-side with other personal statements like my own. It wasn't so good where the advice was related to experience or any particular subjective area.
You know that a learning application will not offend you nor worry about damaging relationships as it isn't dealing with any and it simply gives you clear, concise explanations that can be easily understood. You cannot possibly have too much clarity over what anyone wants you to bring to a role especially where this role is concerned and no more so than with a CV.
One evening, slightly out of morbid curiosity and mostly to kill time (I was procrastinating, admittedly), I decided to feed my CV into one of the various AIs now available and just instructed it to be as blunt as possible, no niceties at all, and tell me what any random, stressed-out hiring manager flicking through 400 CVs in a rush is likely to notice or pick up within the first ten seconds. Didn't expect anything much apart from some bland and repetitive advice I'd already received.
However, what came back was unnervingly specific in many ways that none of my human reviewers, particularly the professional ones, had or ever would mention just because you and I can see each other's faces and humans are nice to humans even if the other person has no clue what they're on about.
My personal statement had been labelled 'too generically to the point where it is replaceable'. Ouch.
My friends' only note was my personal statement was "fine." Recruiters had mentioned absolutely nothing and the fact they hadn't mentioned anything related to it had been my subtle reassurance that my paragraph was okay too.The response I received was basically "it could have been written by any single person with your title and explains absolutely nothing about me that isn't already explained by having that title." Reading it back from that perspective: it was 100% true. It was three fairly vague and utterly bland sentences on something thousands of people include on their CVs year in and year out. And my CV hadn't changed for the past four years without anyone noticing.
The reason a human hasn't done this is probably that it's harsh to tell a mate their first sentence or two is rubbish (even if I gave them a direct instruction to do so!). Recruiters are trying not to alienate you either so they try to tread lightly and be encouraging and they definitely don't want you walking out with no good fee either. An AI tool has no agenda.
No relationship to placate.
And that actually makes the feedback surprisingly useful.
It highlighted a part of my CV I genuinely thought was the strongest one, and once again it was right.
This actually got me quite annoyed for a few minutes because I've always been really proud of one specific project that I managed completely on my own and use it as my most compelling anecdote.The tool I used highlighted it and explained that while the first half had covered exactly what the project was, there was so much jargon related to it that the actual outcome had basically been totally overlooked, the whole reason for doing it. Lots of detail, then. Little substance.
On reflection this was entirely correct.
I knew the project so well that I forgot someone reading my CV for the first time hadn't experienced that journey, so therefore I didn't tell them why any of it mattered and used lots of waffle.
After my first rewrite it included the actual measurable outcome (and I only did it now after realising that no one could see that detail from my first attempt.) A small change, but the entry suddenly looked entirely different.
It didn't help whatsoever where I would have thought it would.
I should mention that not everything worked. I tried to get it to say whether my CV 'sounded' like me and I got nothing more than "it's competent." It wouldn't know as it has never met me.Anything industry related and a bit complicated is out of the realm of what it has been trained on properly so things like technical jargon need proper checks against your specific field and personal experience.
It suggested a specific word that, when used in my job profile, would have made me sound like I knew nothing of my chosen profession. That was scary so check any specific terminology meticulously.
The key here is that it was brilliant at picking out the more vague aspects. Things like my personal statement which looked good until I compared it, side-by-side with other personal statements like my own. It wasn't so good where the advice was related to experience or any particular subjective area.
The interesting point is that I saw feedback in a whole new light after this
The most illuminating part of this was actually seeing how often a fear of offending means normal friends, even those trying really hard to be supportive, can soften everything up to the point where you don't actually learn what you need to about your personal statements and work profile. Similarly even those recruiting who want you to get your CV out to clients, still hold back so they are not damaging any possibility of future working relationships and get paid. I always knew that a professional's feedback can be softer in cases where there are potentially a number of future job opportunities, and my work and abilities as shown on my own CV would not fall into any criteria that would justify being told that in no uncertain terms by my contacts at least.You know that a learning application will not offend you nor worry about damaging relationships as it isn't dealing with any and it simply gives you clear, concise explanations that can be easily understood. You cannot possibly have too much clarity over what anyone wants you to bring to a role especially where this role is concerned and no more so than with a CV.
How I suggest using this
If you're interested in using something like this, I'd recommend focusing on and stressing the specific information you want from it rather than the overall presentation of your CV. Be sure to keep double-checking any information it has regarding industry specific issues against either a relevant friend who works in your field or, if that's not possible, your own judgement. You can be sure the AI isn't checking this from an employers POV and so it's essential this detail is checked or you may appear to have misinterpretations regarding basic professional aspects. I have now improved my own CV and know that AI can be of great help but not as a substitution for knowing the actual business.
Author
No author bio available.
