AI is now firmly part of the hiring process, and that includes how candidates write applications. Used well, it can save time, sharpen wording and help tailor a resume to a position description. Used badly, it can damage an otherwise strong application before it ever reaches the right person. That is the central message from Suki and Tayla in this Conversations that Connect discussion: AI is a useful support tool, but it should never be allowed to take over your resume.

Recruiters are seeing the same pattern repeatedly. A candidate uses AI to generate or rewrite a resume, copies the result into a document, and sends it off without checking whether it is accurate, relevant or even written in the right tone. On the surface, the resume can look polished. Under closer review, the problems become obvious. The voice feels generic. The punctuation looks unnatural. The spelling is American. The examples are misaligned to the role. In some cases, the document even includes information the candidate cannot explain.

That is where things start to fall apart. A good candidate can look careless. A credible work history can look exaggerated. A strong application can lose its impact because the candidate relied on AI to do work that still requires human judgment.

This is not a warning against using AI. It is a reminder to use it properly.

Why recruiters can spot AI-generated resumes so easily

One of the strongest observations in the transcript is how quickly recruiters can identify an AI-assisted resume. It is not always because the writing is poor. In many cases, the opposite is true. The language is neat, structured and grammatically tidy. The issue is that it often sounds the same as every other AI-generated resume crossing the recruiter’s desk.

Tayla points directly to tone as one of the biggest giveaways. The resume often has no real personality. It does not reflect the candidate. It reflects a machine-trained style built from broad internet language. That creates distance between the person and the page.

In recruitment, tone matters because trust matters. A resume is not just a document of facts. It is a professional introduction. It needs to sound credible, clear and grounded in real experience. When a resume reads like it has been produced by a formula, the recruiter starts asking whether the candidate has taken real ownership of what they are submitting.

That concern grows when the language becomes overblown. AI often defaults to phrases that sound impressive without saying much. The result is a profile that looks polished but lacks specificity. Candidates can end up sounding less convincing, not more.

“Mimic the tone of who you are, not who AI is.”

That advice goes to the heart of the issue. AI can support your writing, but the final document must still sound like you.

What AI can do well for your resume

Suki and Tayla make it clear that AI has genuine value in the application process. The problem is not the technology itself. The problem is overreliance.

There are several ways AI can help candidates produce a better resume.

It can compare your existing resume with a position description and identify where your background aligns. It can help you spot missing keywords that matter to ATS screening. It can suggest stronger wording for responsibilities or achievements you have already listed. It can also reorganise content so the most relevant experience appears first.

This is a significant advantage. Tailoring a resume used to involve manually reviewing every line against the advertised role. Now candidates can get support doing that faster. That makes AI useful, especially when applying across multiple roles in a competitive market.

Suki gives a practical example. A candidate may have experience in change management, project management and business analysis. When applying for a change manager role, the change management experience should be prioritised. That means it should be more visible in the summary, skills section and career examples. AI can help restructure a resume to do exactly that.

This is where AI earns its place. It can provide a strong base, a first draft or a clearer structure. It can show candidates gaps they may not have noticed. It can speed up the tailoring process. It can even help bring stronger alignment between your resume and the role requirements.

That is real value. But it only works when the candidate remains in control.

The biggest mistake candidates make with AI

The transcript returns again and again to one core problem: candidates treat AI output as finished work.

They generate a resume, paste it into a document and send it without properly reviewing the content. That is the point where helpful technology turns into a liability.

Suki describes the pattern clearly. AI gives people a good foundation, but then they stop there. Tayla goes further and explains that she has asked candidates about information on their resumes, only for them to say it was not correct. That is more than a formatting issue. It is a credibility issue.

Once a statement appears on your resume, you are accountable for it. It does not matter whether AI wrote it. It is now part of your professional representation.

This is why unchecked AI can be so damaging. It may:

• insert skills you do not truly have

• overstate your involvement in a project

• rewrite your experience in a way that changes the meaning

• make your profile sound broader than your actual expertise

• include language you would never naturally use

• pull focus onto the wrong parts of your background

That does not only create risk at interview. It can also weaken your resume during shortlisting. Recruiters can often sense when language has drifted away from the reality of the candidate’s experience.

A resume is strongest when it is honest, specific and relevant. AI can support all three, but only when the final checks are done by a human who knows the truth of the candidate’s story.

The red flags recruiters keep seeing

Some of the most useful parts of this discussion are the specific frustrations Suki and Tayla raise. These are not abstract concerns. They are practical problems they are fixing on real resumes.

They mention:

• too many commas

• long dashes used repeatedly

• American spelling instead of Australian or UK English

• generic tone

• repeated formatting styles that look identical across resumes

• irrelevant opening paragraphs that sound nice but do not support the application

• incorrect information left in the document

• layouts that are hard for ATS systems to read

These details matter because they are often the first clues that a resume has been generated and sent with minimal review.

The spelling issue is especially important in an Australian market. Tayla calls out the use of z’s instead of s’s as a clear giveaway. That means candidates need to actively check for local language consistency. Words such as organisation, specialised, prioritise and analyse should match UK or Australian conventions throughout the document.

Punctuation also matters more than many candidates realise. Suki notes how often she is removing unnecessary commas and cleaning up long dashes. These habits are becoming increasingly associated with AI-generated writing. That means small edits can make a big difference in how natural and credible your resume feels.

Then there is relevance. One example in the transcript stands out: a candidate had a beautifully written first paragraph in their profile, but it was not relevant to the role. The second paragraph contained the material that actually matched the position. The solution was simple. Remove the decorative introduction and lead with the part that helps the recruiter understand why you fit the role.

That is a good rule for every candidate. A resume does not need to sound elegant for its own sake. It needs to make your suitability obvious.

Tailoring still matters more than polish

One of the strongest themes in the conversation is that tailoring remains essential. AI has not changed that. In fact, it has made tailoring even more important.

Candidates often think a strong general resume is enough. It is not. When employers are using AI and ATS tools to sort applications, broad language can cause strong candidates to be missed.

Suki and Tayla explain that clients are using AI to sift through resumes and identify the most relevant applications. That process is not foolproof, but it is common. The best way to improve your chances of being surfaced is to tailor your resume to the role.

That does not mean stuffing your document with buzzwords. It means making sure your real experience is described in language that clearly matches what the role requires.

For example, if the role is for a delivery project manager and your resume only refers generally to project work, the system may not connect the dots. If your actual experience includes delivery leadership, implementation oversight or end-to-end rollout responsibility, that should be stated clearly.

Tailoring works because it helps both systems and people. It gives ATS tools the keywords they are looking for, and it gives recruiters immediate evidence of relevance.

A strong tailored resume does three things:

It leads with the most relevant experience

Do not bury the experience that matters most to the role. Put it where it can be seen quickly.

It uses the language of the job ad truthfully

Reflect the role terminology where it genuinely matches what you have done.

It removes material that does not help

Not every skill or achievement belongs in every application. Relevance is more powerful than volume.

This is why AI should be used as a tailoring assistant, not a resume replacement service.

Why simple formatting works better

Another practical point from the transcript is the warning about overdesigned resumes. Candidates sometimes try to stand out with tables, graphics, icons and image-heavy layouts. That can create serious problems, especially when a resume is being read by software first.

Tayla points out that resumes with too many tables or images can become jumbled when parsed by ATS systems. Strong candidates can miss out simply because their resume is difficult to read electronically.

The advice from the discussion is refreshingly direct: keep it plain, simple and easy to read.

That means:

• clear section headings

• straightforward fonts

• clean spacing

• bullet points where useful

• no clutter

• no unnecessary visual elements

A resume does not need to be visually impressive. It needs to communicate fast. Recruiters often scan quickly on the first pass, and ATS systems are even less forgiving. Simplicity increases your chances of being understood properly.

This is one of the clearest areas where candidates overcomplicate the process. They focus on making the resume look different when they should be focusing on making it easy to read.

Why the human element still matters

The transcript also highlights something that often gets lost in discussions about automation: good recruitment still depends on human judgment.

Tayla makes the point that a computer can only assess what it has been told to assess. That means strong candidates can miss out if they have not phrased their experience in the expected way. It also means weak candidates can sometimes sound stronger on paper than they really are, simply because they have used AI to produce a highly optimised resume.

This creates a distorted picture of capability. Someone who can “talk the talk” through AI-generated wording may look stronger than someone with genuine hands-on experience who has not optimised their phrasing.

That is why the human review still matters so much. Recruiters can see nuance. They can spot transferable skills. They can sense when a candidate’s experience genuinely fits, even when the wording is imperfect. They can also detect when a resume sounds too polished to be trusted at face value.

That human element is not old-fashioned. It is still essential. Technology can support the process, but it cannot fully replace the ability to interpret the person behind the document.

How to use AI without letting it ruin your resume

The best guidance from Suki and Tayla can be distilled into a practical approach candidates can use immediately.

Start with your real resume, not a blank prompt. Give AI accurate dates, responsibilities and achievements. Use the position description alongside your resume and ask AI to identify where the strongest alignment sits.

Then use it to help with structure. Ask it to reorder material so the most relevant experience appears first. Ask it to tighten sentences, improve clarity and reduce repetition. Ask it to suggest ways to bring role-relevant language into the document.

Then stop and review everything.

Check the tone. Does it sound like you? Check the content. Is every statement accurate? Check the language. Is it written in UK or Australian English? Check the punctuation. Have commas and dashes been overused? Check the formatting. Is it clean and ATS-friendly? Check the relevance. Does every section help you compete for this role?

That process turns AI into a useful assistant rather than a risky shortcut.

The real lesson from this conversation

The frustration Suki and Tayla describe is not really about AI. It is about the way people are handing over responsibility to a tool that still needs careful supervision.

AI can save time. It can strengthen a base draft. It can improve tailoring. It can help candidates articulate experience more clearly. Those are real benefits, and ignoring them would make little sense in the current market.

But AI cannot replace your judgment, your accuracy or your understanding of your own career. It cannot decide what deserves emphasis. It cannot guarantee that every sentence reflects the truth. It cannot check whether your application sounds like a real person ready to do the job.

That part still belongs to you.

The candidates who use AI best will be the ones who stay involved. They will edit the output carefully. They will tailor with intention. They will remove generic filler. They will check every line. They will make sure their resume reflects their actual strengths, in language that both recruiters and systems can understand.

That is the balance worth striking. Use the tool. Do not let the tool use you.