Candidates are using AI to apply: what's the right recruiter response?

Why has this risen so fast?

Generative AI tools have made it effortless to produce a polished CV, a tailored cover letter, and a well-structured written answer in minutes. For candidates under pressure to apply at volume, using them is rational. The concern rises above 40% in sectors like Legal and Government, but no recruiter is untouched: the result is a wave of applications that all read well, whether or not the person behind them can do the job.

The instinct is to treat this as fraud to be caught. But a polished CV was never proof of capability; a polished, AI-assisted written answer is no different. The signal recruiters relied on has weakened, and detection alone does not bring it back.

The wrong question, and the right one

"How do we detect AI?" leads recruiting teams into an arms race they cannot win; the tools improve faster than the detectors. Detection still has a place as a safety net, and HubertDetect™ flags AI-assisted responses for recruiter review. But it is a safety net, not a strategy.

The better question: how do you assess what AI cannot fake? How a person reasons, structures their thinking, and describes their own work in their own words. A structured, competency-based interview measures exactly that, giving every candidate the same questions, assessed against the same criteria, at the moment where genuine capability actually shows up.

What you'll take away

Join us on September 2

Charlotte Clarke (Eploy) and Greg Dunbar (Hubert) host the session live, with Q&A throughout. It's 20 minutes, it stands on its own, and it gets specific: what the data shows, why it is happening, and the workflow that answers it.

Want the full picture first? Read Eploy's 2026 UK Candidate Attraction Report here.