AI Didn't Fix Hiring. It Built a Bigger Black Hole | Opinion

Almost everyone will seek a job at some point, or know someone who is looking for one right now. Whether the individual is a recent college graduate, a displaced neighbor, or a mother reentering the workforce, they are all likely to encounter a hiring process that has quietly excluded them. Recently, a popular story on LinkedIn discussed Gen Z job seekers describing the process as impersonal, humiliating, and even dehumanizing. Some candidates entered offices with printed résumés, yet could not reach a human being.

The cycle is simple. A candidate utilizes AI to craft a résumé, submits it to an AI-written job posting, and it is screened by software before any human sees it. If they are fortunate, they receive an interview invitation, which is often a bot. Subsequently, they wait, and no one ever calls. AI on one side, AI on the other, and no humans in between. Everyone was promised efficiency. However, what was created was a machine talking to itself.

According to Resume Genius's 2026 AI Impact on Hiring Report, 87% of U.S. hiring managers use AI in some form of recruitment, while 82% express concern about candidates employing AI on their applications. Employers handed the process to machines, only to then complain when candidates did the same. Greenhouse's 2025 AI in Hiring Report, which surveyed 1,200 American job seekers, reveals that 54% have already experienced an AI-led interview, while 62% of Gen Z entry-level workers reported a decline in their trust in the hiring process over the past year.

This issue is not exclusive to young people. When qualified candidates are not seen, the wrong individuals are hired, turnover increases, and positions remain vacant. This affects various aspects of life, such as classrooms without teachers, caseworkers with double the cases, and services that take twice as long to respond to. Poor hiring is a shared problem.

For over 20 years, the author has recruited people for schools, nonprofits, and public agencies. Throughout their career, they referred to company career pages as "the black hole." Applicants apply, their résumés disappear, and no one ever reviews them. AI interviews have become the new black hole, but even deeper. Candidates now record interviews that go unnoticed.

In many organizations, nobody even knows how to retrieve those recordings. The personal information collected is uncertain where it ultimately ends up. The author emphasizes that they are not anti-AI, as they regularly use it themselves, but hiring is not a task suited for AI.

Hiring entails people choosing people. It involves judgment, understanding what a candidate does not say, and discerning something in their voice that indicates they are the right fit. This knowledge comes from years of observing placements succeed and fail. AI cannot replicate this expertise. During a 90-day test of an AI interviewing platform, the author found that setup consumed nearly a month of work hours, and the AI-generated scores for résumés and interviews did not align with their own assessments. Recruiters using the software disliked it, and within 60 days, the author abandoned the trial.

The most alarming lesson was the type of candidate attracted by the AI interviews. They were mostly individuals who applied to every posting they saw and frequently jumped from job to job. The strong, qualified candidates they desired were the ones who withdrew from the process. The tool not only failed to find suitable candidates but also pushed them away.

Furthermore, it eliminated a crucial aspect of the hiring process. Candidates should know that a real person will answer the phone. Once the AI started conducting interviews, that aspect was lost.

The author subsequently discontinued the AI interviews and ensured every candidate they work with interacts with a person first. They stated that when employers utilize AI for its strengths—scheduling, sorting, and drafting—they receive prompt feedback from candidates, even if the answer is negative. Teachers join classrooms within weeks rather than months, and young people learn that effort yields a response, encouraging them to continue applying.

In contrast, the second scenario perpetuates a vicious cycle. Bots communicate with bots. High-quality candidates quietly withdraw, while those willing to endure anything secure positions, causing turnover to consume whatever automation saves. Nonprofits and charter schools, whose reputations rely on caring about people, suffer as a result of each unanswered application, which represents a parent, neighbor, donor, or potential employee.

A generation may conclude that no one is on the other side, and cease trying. The author contends that the second future is closer than most employers realize.