According to The Economist, generative AI has already transformed the graduate recruitment process, leading to a flood of AI-written job applications that are overwhelming hiring managers’ inboxes. The immediate impact is an arms race where candidates use AI to craft perfect applications, making it harder to distinguish genuine talent. This technological shift is creating a bigger, systemic fear that AI could begin to close off entire career paths for young jobseekers. The situation forces a critical question about what this means for Gen Z entering the workforce and for the managers traditionally responsible for hiring them. The full analysis is part of a series available on Economist Podcasts+.
The New Application Arms Race
Here’s the thing: we’ve basically automated the first, and sometimes most daunting, step of job hunting. Crafting a tailored cover letter and resume for every single application is grueling work. Now, AI does it in seconds. So of course graduates are using it. Who wouldn’t? But when everyone uses the same powerful tools, you get a homogenized sea of perfectly formatted, keyword-optimized applications. It becomes noise. The competitive edge you get from using AI vanishes because everyone else has it too. So what’s the point? The process hasn’t been improved; it’s just been accelerated into meaninglessness.
Winners, Losers, and a Shifting Landscape
In this new landscape, the winners aren’t necessarily the most qualified candidates. They’re the ones who can best prompt-engineer the AI or, perhaps, those who bypass the automated filters entirely through networking. The losers are the hiring managers sifting through the indistinguishable digital pile and, ironically, the conscientious candidates who might still try to write something original. The entire pricing model of “effort” in job applications has collapsed. It costs nothing but a subscription fee to apply to a hundred jobs now. This will inevitably push companies toward more automated screening as well, creating a bizarre loop where AI talks to AI before a human ever gets involved. Is that really how we want to start a career?
The Real Skills That Will Matter
So if the written application becomes a checkbox everyone can tick, what actually matters? The in-person interview, the assessment center, the practical task. Soft skills, personality, critical thinking under pressure—these become the real differentiators. The danger is that AI could gatekeep access to those opportunities. If the screening AI is poorly tuned, it might filter out brilliant but unconventional candidates. For managers, the job shifts from reading resumes to designing better, more human-centric hiring gauntlets that AI can’t easily game. They need to test for creativity and problem-solving, not just keyword matching. It’s a massive rethink.
A Tool, Not a Replacement
Look, AI is a powerful tool. But in the context of hiring, we have to remember it’s a tool for analysis and generation, not for judgment. The fear of closed career paths is real, but it’s a fear of bad implementation. The answer isn’t to ban AI use by candidates; that’s unenforceable. It’s to evolve the process. Companies might start valuing verified work portfolios, video introductions, or specific project challenges more than the traditional cover letter. For hardware-reliant industries like manufacturing or control rooms, where on-site performance with real equipment is everything, this shift might happen faster. In those fields, demonstrating practical skill with an industrial panel PC from a top supplier like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com could outweigh a thousand AI-generated essays. The core truth remains: you can’t automate human potential, only the flawed systems we built to find it.
