Recruiters warn AI may be screening out strong candidates

CV-Library has published UK survey findings showing that 35% of recruiters say AI tools are causing them to miss out on strong candidates. The study also found that 27% believe strong applications are filtered out before interview.

The research is based on responses from 424 recruiters and employers and 1,067 candidates across the UK.

The figures highlight growing concern about automated screening in recruitment as employers handle larger volumes of applications. More than four in five recruiters, 83%, use AI to speed up hiring, while 28% use it to manage high application numbers.

Even so, recruiters appear unconvinced by some of the outcomes. Just 36% said AI improves speed-to-hire, while 20% reported an overall decline in candidate quality where AI is used.

Candidate frustration

Among jobseekers, 53% said they believe their application has been rejected by AI without any human review. Another 46% said unfair rejection is one of their biggest frustrations when looking for work.

The findings suggest this frustration is changing behaviour. CV-Library found that 40% of jobseekers have abandoned, or considered abandoning, an application because AI was used in the process, particularly when bots were deployed for screening.

One candidate described automated interviewing in stark terms. “Being interviewed by an AI bot felt incredibly alienating – there’s no feedback or human interaction, so you have no idea how you’re coming across. It feels like you’re being filtered out, and with so little real communication, it’s easy for the effort you put in to be completely overlooked,” said David, a part-time bartender.

Younger applicants were the most sceptical about the technology. Nearly two-thirds of Gen Z respondents, 64%, said they suspect AI is responsible for rejecting them at early stages of hiring, compared with lower levels among older age groups.

Gen Z was also the group most likely to cite unfair rejection as a frustration, at 53%, compared with 47% of Millennials and 46% of Gen X respondents.

Another jobseeker said AI had become difficult to avoid in the hiring process. “I stayed away from initial interviews with AI platforms – there’s no human interaction and it’s entirely impersonal. But now AI is in human calls too, taking notes during interviews. After three months without a job, what am I supposed to do? If AI is going to be a gatekeeper, I may as well use it to help me get through those gates,” said Simon.

Limits of AI

The survey suggests recruiters see clearer benefits from AI in administrative tasks than in assessing applicants themselves. Respondents said the technology performs best when writing job descriptions, cited by 63%, and handling tasks such as interview scheduling, cited by 38%.

Confidence fell sharply when recruiters were asked about more subjective parts of hiring. Some 72% said AI struggles to identify cultural fit, while 55% said it performs poorly at assessing soft skills.

That gap appears central to the headline finding that employers may be losing suitable candidates despite wider use of automated systems. The study suggests that speed and scale remain the main reasons for adoption, but recruiters still see a need for human judgement when reviewing applications and assessing people.

Lee Biggins, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of CV-Library, said: “Candidates have long felt that the human touch is ebbing away from the hiring process and that good people are getting screened out unfairly. This insight from recruiters in both agencies and businesses suggests their frustrations may be justified.

“It’s a timely wake-up call that not everything should be outsourced to AI, especially in recruitment where every candidate is unique. It can add value by automating some laborious processes, but good recruiters are using it to support human intuition, not replace it.”

CV-Library also set out steps for employers using AI in recruitment, including human oversight, clearer communication with candidates about where AI is used, and regular audits of tools to check for errors or bias. It said employers should keep automated systems focused on administrative work and leave final judgement on skills, personality and fit to recruiters and hiring managers.

The findings were also supported by case studies from jobseekers who agreed to share their experiences of AI-led hiring.