AI isn’t why you didn’t get the job
A lot of what you're reading on LinkedIn and in the media about AI and hiring is largely bullshit. There, I said it, and I stand behind it.
AI is not the reason you didn't get the job.
Not every company in Australia is using AI to screen your resume. Sorry, but they're not. According to AHRI's Work Outlook for the December quarter 2025, 49% of Australian employers aren't using AI anywhere in their recruitment process, and only 17% use it to screen or shortlist candidates.
Most of my clients don't use it to screen resumes either. When they do use AI, it's for salary guidance, role structure or what to include in a position description. I write their job ads. I read every resume and every cover letter. A human is still making the decision.
The real reason is simpler
The reason you didn't get the job is usually much simpler than a robot. Your resume, cover letter or selection criteria didn't show that you were the strongest person for the role.
That's it. That's most of it.
Blaming AI is easy
The blame game is easy, because it means you don't have to take accountability.
"I've applied for 50 roles and haven't got any of them. It's AI."
That's a much more comfortable thing to say than the alternatives, which take some self-reflection:
Your resume wasn't the strongest one in the pile.
You're applying for roles you're not suited to.
You didn't address the criteria.
None of those are fun to hear. But every one of them is something you can fix. AI isn't.
What "strongest" actually means
When I'm shortlisting, I'm comparing every application against criteria I've built with the employer. The question isn't "is this person good?" It's "has this person shown me they can do this specific job better than the others?"
If your resume is generic, if your cover letter could have gone to any company, if you've skipped the selection criteria or answered them with one line, you haven't shown me. And I can't put forward what I can't see.
Yes, the process has more steps
Applying used to mean a resume and an interview. Now it might be a resume, a cover letter, selection criteria, screening questions and a short video before you speak to anyone. It's frustrating, and it takes time.
But that isn't AI. That's risk mitigation. Every hire is a risk decision, and employers are adding steps to reduce the chance of getting it wrong. Every one of those steps is also a chance for you to stand out, if you treat it that way.
Where AI actually is a problem
If AI is hurting anyone's chances, it's the candidates using it badly. More and more applications read the same: same structure, same polished phrases, same "results-driven professional passionate about delivering value."
Give AI generic information and you'll get a generic answer. Use it if you want to, but give it your real detail, then edit it until it sounds like you. A polished application that says nothing is still saying nothing.
So, before you blame the robot
Read the ad properly, and answer what it's actually asking for.
Address every selection criterion, with real examples.
Tailor every application. A cover letter addressed to the wrong company tells me more than any AI detector could.
Be honest about whether you're suited to the roles you're applying for.
If you keep getting knocked back, ask for feedback from someone on the hiring side, and listen to it.
Job searching is hard, and it's exhausting. I'm not dismissing that. But the people who get results are the ones who look at what's in their control and work on it, rather than looking for something else to blame.
AI didn't change what gets someone hired. It just gave us something new to blame.