AI didn't break hiring. It just made the brokenness impossible to ignore. Here's what's happening: → 30→500 applications per role → 80–85% rejected before human review → Auto-reject then repost → 60% ghosted after final rounds 🧵 The data + what to do about it:

auto-rejection "we found a better match" better how? keyword density? linkedin profile score? video interview tone? you don't know. company doesn't know either. AI scored you. system rejected you. recruiter never saw you. rejected by a black box. fix vairee.ai/talent

i got auto-rejected from a role "we found a better match" job was reposted 3 days later AI didn't break hiring. it just made the brokenness impossible to ignore we wrote about what's happening: linkedin.com/pulse/ai-didnt-…

🔗 to article linkedin.com/pulse/ai-didnt-…

Job posts that used to get 30 applications now get 500. The ATS filters on keywords. AI scores on top. 80–85% rejected before a human sees your name. 60% who make it to final rounds never hear back. AI didn't break hiring. It exposed how broken it already was 👇

the ATS is optimised for reduction, not discovery it's designed to shrink 400 applications to 40, not to find the person who can actually solve the problem and the cruel part? the best candidates get filtered out first be findable by humans instead: vairee.ai/talent

75% of CVs never reach human eyes. The ATS filters for keyword matches, not competence. Here's who it penalises most: → Career changers → Senior professionals → Self-taught devs → Clear writers 🧵 Why — and what to build instead: ---

75% of CVs never reach human eyes. The ATS filters for keyword matches, not competence. If you say "led" instead of "managed," you're out. Different words. Same work. No interview. Here's who it penalises most: linkedin.com/pulse/why-best-…