I automated my job application process

Overall reaction to automated job applications

• Many see automating applications with LLMs as technically clever but socially harmful.
• Frequent framing: tragedy-of-the-commons / prisoner’s-dilemma. If others spray-and-pray, individuals feel forced to do the same, even though it worsens the system for everyone.
• Some call it narcissistic or spammy; others argue it’s a rational response to opaque ATS filters, ghost jobs, and instant automated rejections.

Impact on hiring managers and companies

• Hiring managers report hundreds to thousands of applications per role, often 90%+ clearly unqualified or obviously AI-generated.
• Complaints include: duplicated resumes, identical cover letters with minor edits, fake identities, and even organized fraud rings using fabricated CVs and remote-work scams.
• Noise pushes many to:
  • Ignore early applicants.
  • Rely more heavily on referrals and private channels.
  • Stop public postings entirely and hire through networks or agencies.
  • Consider on-site or in-person-only interviews even for remote jobs.

Job seeker experience and incentives

• Job seekers describe:
  • Hundreds–thousands of applications for a single interview.
  • Ghosting at all stages, including after multi-round interviews.
  • “Ghost jobs” and roles posted without real intent to hire.
• This drives a numbers-game mentality and makes deeply researching and tailoring each application feel irrational.
• Some insist targeted, high-effort applications and networking still work; others say that advice is out of date for mid-level/senior engineers today.

Cover letters, resumes, and LLM use

• Mixed views on cover letters:
  • Some hiring managers like them when they add specific, non-generic detail or personal context.
  • Many see LLM-generated letters as long, formal, and content-free; they confer no advantage and can be a negative signal.
• Resume optimization via LLMs appears to increase callback rates in some anecdotal tests, but is often detected as templated.

Cheating and “fake candidates”

• Reports of candidates:
  • Using LLMs live during remote interviews.
  • Having others do the work after hire (offshore substitution).
• Leads to moves toward:
  • In-person or proctored interviews.
  • “Humanity checks” (possibility of in-person rounds, surprise calls, local meetups).

Proposed fixes and structural ideas

• Suggested mitigations:
  • Small manual tasks or instructions in postings to filter bots.
  • More in-person events and career fairs.
  • Greater reliance on referrals, networking, and internal candidate pipelines.
• More structural proposals:
  • Professional licensing or standardized competency exams.
  • Union/guild-like bodies or centralized reputation/credential systems.
  • Regulation of job boards and ATS behavior, though feasibility is debated.