AI is already in the hiring room

AI is no longer knocking on the door of recruitment, it’s already inside.

From CV screening and sourcing to scheduling interviews and analysing candidate data, AI now touches huge parts of the hiring process. And while plenty of organisations are leaning in, others are quietly uneasy. The real question isn’t whether AI belongs in recruitment anymore. It’s how far should it go, and where do humans need to step back in?

To unpack the dilemma, we put it to our experts. Jack Jorgensen, General Manager – Data, AI & Innovation at Avec  argues the case for AI as a powerful enabler, while Georgia Hynes, Senior Talent Partner at Talent Wellington takes the opposing view, cautioning leaders against over-automation in a human-led profession.

Here’s where they landed.

The case for AI: smarter shortlists, less burnout

Jack’s position is clear: AI shouldn’t replace recruiters, but ignoring it would be a mistake.

“AI is already being used by candidates,” he explains. “If you don’t use it, you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage.”

From a candidate perspective, Jack sees real value. Many capable professionals struggle to articulate their experience and write a strong CV, especially those with non-linear career paths.

“There are people who can do the work but can’t sell themselves, AI helps level that playing field.” He says.

On the recruiter side, Jack argues AI can significantly reduce manual workload, particularly in high-volume markets.

“If you’ve got 200 applicants for a role, going through every CV isn’t a human experience either, AI can help surface the top 30% so recruiters can spend their time where it matters, qualifying properly.”

He also challenges the idea that AI creates dishonesty.

“People have lied on CVs for years. That problem didn’t start with AI, it just evolved.”

Used correctly, Jack sees AI as an enabler in supporting better recruitment, not making the final call.

The case against AI: recruitment is still human work

Georgia agrees AI has its place, but draws a firm line when it comes to decision-making.

“My job as a recruiter is knowing who will work out in a role and who won’t, that’s not something a machine can do.” she says.

From a client perspective, her biggest concern is over-reliance. When every CV looks polished (because AI helped write it), it becomes harder to spot what actually matters: a. can this candidate really do what their CV says they can do b. transferable skills, context, the ‘why’ behind a career move and the nuances that experienced recruiters see instantly.

“Humans can read between the lines. AI filters based on keywords. That’s where great candidates get lost.”

She’s also sceptical that AI can replace intuition, one of the most valuable tools an experienced recruiter has. “I can hear uncertainty in someone’s voice. I can hear when something’s off, even over the phone. AI doesn’t have intuition. It never will.” she explains.

Georgia also raises the risk of bias at scale. “AI learns from historical data. If past hiring was biased, you’re just repeating it at scale.”

And when it comes to video-based AI assessments?

“Honestly, abhorrent,” Jack adds. “Trying to simulate recruiter judgement through facial cues and voice analytics is a terrible experience for everyone.”

Georgia agrees “We’re not recruiting robots. Humans should not be filtered out by machines.”

The verdict: a mixture of both

Ultimately, this debate doesn’t land with a simple “yes” or “no”.

AI isn’t breaking recruitment, but misusing it can.

Used well, AI can help reduce recruiter burnout, improve focus, and help teams move faster through the early stages of screening. Used poorly, it strips nuances, amplifies bias, and filters out great people.

For leaders, the takeaway is clear: AI should support recruiters, not replace them. And human judgement must remain at the centre of every hiring decision.

The future of recruitment isn’t human or AI. It’s human with AI, used carefully, intentionally, and with experience leading the way.