From recruiters optimising workflows to candidates using ChatGPT to tailor their résumés, everyone is using AI these days. Or rather, living, breathing AI. In this high-stakes talent game, speed, precision, and personalisation are everything.
As the tools get smarter, so do the people using them. The real question now isn’t who has the tech, it is who’s using it better.
To unpack what this new hiring era looks like on the ground, we spoke to Nithya Parthasarathy, VP of HR at Bahwan CyberTek, who offered a candid view into how her team is navigating this shift. Blending tech with human instinct, redefining talent strategies, and staying one step ahead in a world where both recruiters and candidates are thinking several prompts ahead.
Q/ How are job seekers using ChatGPT, resume bots, AI-generated cover letters or GitHub Copilot-style tools?
As AI platforms become more accessible, job seekers are increasingly leveraging them to refine resumes, craft compelling cover letters, and rehearse interviews through interactive roleplays. Tools like ChatGPT help candidates articulate their value proposition in a more human and confident tone, while resume bots optimise language to align with recruiter expectations and pass ATS (Applicant Tracking System) screenings. AI-generated cover letters are now tailored to match specific job descriptions and resumes, enhancing personalisation at scale. Meanwhile, platforms like GitHub are empowering even novice developers to automate code generation and explore new frameworks with ease.
Q/ Is this giving some candidates an unfair edge, or simply reflecting future-readiness?
It may widen the digital divide but AI assisted workflows are the norm. AI doesn’t make candidates smarter, it makes them better prepared. Calculator didn’t ruin math or PowerPoint didn’t make everyone a good presenter. Tools evolve but fundamentals endure.
At BCT (Bahwan Cybertek), we actively encourage our teams to experiment, learn, and lead with emerging technologies to stay ahead in an increasingly competitive landscape. Whether it is using AI to accelerate decision-making, automate routine tasks, or enhance creativity, we see these tools as catalysts, not replacements.
Q/ How can recruiters distinguish between AI-polished and human-authored applications and should they?
Yes, but with Agentic AI systems, it will be harder. The real issue isn’t identifying AI polish, it’s ensuring you’re hiring for substance, not just surface. That means shifting the focus from how well something is written to who the candidate truly is.
Should hiring practices evolve to assess judgement, intent, and collaboration, not just polished output?
Absolutely. Polish doesn’t equal performance. AI can generate responses, but not decisions. Qualities like judgement, active listening, navigating ambiguity, and real-time collaboration are deeply human, and well beyond AI’s reach. These are the traits hiring should prioritise.
Q/ Are traditional interviews and skill assessments still reliable?
They still hold value, but they are no longer sufficient on their own. Skill assessments need to reflect real-world complexity, not just textbook scenarios. Interviewers must be trained to evaluate more than just knowledge; they should assess how candidates think, adapt, and learn.
We should normalise AI use and design assessments that go beyond what AI can fake. In-the-moment and Live assignments are the future-proof assessments.
Q/ How can recruiters embrace AI themselves, for faster screening, candidate experience, etc., without automating empathy out of the process?
AI is a tool, and empathy is a choice. The goal is not to choose between efficiency and empathy, but to craft a recruitment process that is both fast and kind, data-driven and deeply personal. By thoughtfully integrating AI, recruiters can free themselves from repetitive work and focus on what they do best: connecting with people, understanding their stories and helping them find fulfilling roles.
At BCT, we don’t just rely on AI; we invest time in real conversations, because people are, and always will be, at the heart of everything we do.
Q/ What does 'human touch' actually mean in an AI-assisted hiring workflow?
Human touch in AI-assisted hiring workflows means transforming a transaction into a meaningful interaction (i.e., infusing every stage of recruitment with empathy and authentic connection). Candidates are people, not just data. Technology should help us be more human, not less. Companies that balance technology and personal touch will lead the way.
We've found that when AI streamlines the process and our people bring the human touch, the impact is lasting, candidates who feel seen and heard remain engaged well beyond onboarding, fostering deeper connections throughout the employee lifecycle.
Q/ Should organisations declare the use of AI in hiring, just as they may ask candidates to do the same?
Yes, it’s becoming more important than ever. Yes, transparency is more important than ever. When both humans and machines are involved in hiring decisions, openness is key to building trust and ensuring fairness. If candidates are expected to disclose their use of AI tools, organisations should do the same. Clear communication on both sides helps create a smarter, more ethical hiring process, one that remains centred on people.
Q/ What are the ethical boundaries in rejecting or prioritising AI-augmented applications?
The boundaries should be guided by fairness, transparency, and intent. The focus must stay on competence, not just authorship. Prioritise actual skill over style, and substance over surface.
In today’s world, using AI tools to enhance productivity isn’t cheating, it’s being resourceful.
The ethical line should be drawn at misrepresentation, not augmentation. Falsifying certifications, lying about experience, or plagiarising content is unethical. But using AI to communicate more clearly or structure a resume isn’t.
A quick rule of thumb for recruiters: If you strip away the AI polish, does the candidate still demonstrate the skills, experience, and understanding they claim? If yes, evaluate them fairly. If no, it’s ethical to deprioritise and focus on authenticity and true capability.
