Skip to content
AI in recruitment isn’t new. But how it’s communicated? That’s where things potentially start to break down between the hiring company and the candidate.
We recently conducted a snapshot survey of candidates, looking at their views and attitudes towards the use of AI in the recruitment process. In part one of our article series looking at the findings, we explored the The Importance of Connection.
In part two, we look at the crucial role transparency plays. The data reveals a clear pattern: candidates aren’t rejecting AI outright, they’re rejecting uncertainty. When recruiters fail to set expectations, candidates fill in the gaps themselves… often in ways that damage fairness, trust, and ultimately, experience.
Candidate expectations
When left to their own devices, most candidates claim they would use AI responsibly.
- 41% say they wouldn’t use AI at all
- 89% would use it only occasionally or less
- Just 5% admit they would rely on it completely
But here’s the twist.
When asked what other candidates would do, perceptions shift dramatically:
- Only 4% believe others wouldn’t use AI
- 56% think others would rely on it significantly
This disconnect matters.
It creates a competition mindset, where candidates feel pressure to use AI—not because they want to, but because they assume everyone else is.
That’s not a technology problem. That’s a transparency problem.
Without guidance, the playing field doesn’t feel level
Candidates are clear about what they want: direction.
- 55% say recruiters should explicitly state whether AI is allowed
- Only 12% think no guidance is needed
How do you think recruiters should approach their messaging around candidates using AI for Online Assessments?
In other words, ambiguity is the issue, not AI itself.
When expectations aren’t defined, candidates face a dilemma:
- Use AI and risk being penalised
- Don’t use it and risk falling behind
It’s a lose-lose situation, and one that directly undermines confidence in the process.
Transparency today? It’s falling short
Right now, candidates don’t think recruiters are getting this right.
Average sentiment on transparency in AI use was revealed as ‘slightly negative’.
From your own experience, how transparent do you feel recruiters are about using AI in Online Assessments?
And it’s not equal across the board.
- Candidates with disabilities report much lower confidence (2.2 vs 3.1)
- 67% of these candidates rate transparency at 2 or below
This isn’t just a comms gap. It’s an inclusion issue.
When guidance is unclear, those who need clarity most are disproportionately impacted.
Should candidates be penalised for using AI?
Even here, the lack of transparency creates confusion.
Opinions are split:
- 20% strongly disagree with penalties
- 15% strongly agree
There’s no consensus, because there’s no consistent framework to judge against. Without clear rules, candidates are left guessing what “fair” looks like.
The real concern isn’t AI… it’s trust
Candidates aren’t worried about using AI tools. Most feel confident doing so.
Their biggest concern is something else entirely:
- 59% are most worried about AI producing inaccurate content
They may also have concerns around:
- Data privacy
- Technical reliability
- Algorithmic bias
This suggests that candidates aren’t anti-AI, they’re risk-aware.
And without transparency from employers, those risks feel unmanaged.
Algorithmic bias: awareness is rising… and so is concern
Candidates are increasingly aware of algorithmic bias, with average awareness sitting around mid-range. But more importantly, they believe it’s a real issue:
- Sentiment toward bias risk sits at 4.1 out of 6
- Some groups feel even more exposed to it.
Before reading the above statement, how aware were you of Algorithmic Bias?
This matters. Because when candidates don’t understand how AI is used, or how risk is mitigated, they don’t assume neutrality. They assume uncertainty.
Transparency isn’t about disclosure, it’s about confidence
The takeaway is simple: Candidates don’t need AI removed from the process.
They need it explained.
Because right now:
- They don’t know how much they can use AI
- They don’t know how recruiters use AI
- They don’t know what “good” looks like
And when those answers are missing, behaviour shifts:
- Fairness erodes
- Trust declines
- Experience suffers
The role of recruiters: set the rules, build trust
The opportunity for employers is clear, and relatively simple to act on.
Transparency doesn’t need to be complex. It just needs to be consistent.
That means:
- Setting clear expectations on candidate AI use
- Explaining how AI is used in scoring and decision-making
- Providing guidance on appropriate usage
- Acknowledging risks like bias and hallucination—and how they’re managed
Done well, this doesn’t just reduce anxiety.
It creates something far more valuable: a level playing field.
Final thoughts: Transparency is the new fairness
AI has changed the rules of recruitment. But many processes still operate as if nothing has changed.
Candidates have moved on. Their expectations have evolved.
And they’re asking for one thing above all else: Clarity.
Because in an AI-enabled hiring world, transparency isn’t a “nice to have”.
It’s the difference between:
- Confidence and uncertainty
- Fairness and suspicion
- Engagement and drop-off
The final part of our blog series will focus on the pillar Authenticity.
You can request your copy of the full survey report Human First: Candidate Perspectives on AI in Recruitment here.
