Skip to content
AI is rapidly reshaping many aspects of early careers hiring, but are candidates ready for it?
We recently completed a snapshot survey to reveal how students and early talent really feel about AI across the recruitment journey, from communication and chatbots, through to authenticity and trust.
At the heart of the study are three core pillars:
- Connection – how organisations communicate with candidates
- Authenticity – how genuine and human the process feels
- Transparency – how clearly AI is used and explained
Ahead of the full study report, coming soon, this article focuses on the first of these pillars – Connection – and what the data reveals about candidate expectations when AI enters the conversation.
AI in candidate communication: more resistance than readiness
Despite the rise of AI tools, candidates are not overwhelmingly positive about their use in recruitment communication.
Overall sentiment towards AI-led communication sits at 2.8 out of 6, indicating a mildly negative perception among candidates.
- Female candidates reported lower sentiment (2.6/6)
- Male candidates were slightly more open at 3.0/6
The takeaway is clear:
Candidates are not yet fully comfortable with AI replacing human interaction at scale.
Written AI comms: accepted, but not trusted
When it comes to written communication, such as emails and SMS, sentiment does improve slightly. Overall, candidates feel broadly neutral about AI-generated messages, with an average score of 3.2/6.
Interestingly:
- Higher salary candidates (£35k+) are more positive (3.9/6)
- Lower salary candidates are more cautious (3.0/6)
This suggests familiarity with AI in professional contexts influences perception. However, it’s important to remember that neutrality isn’t endorsement. Candidates may accept AI in written comms, but they’re not actively impressed by it, and a time when first impressions count, we would suggest you proceed with caution.
Verbal AI communication is a step too far
When AI moves into verbal communication, such as calls, video, or audio messages, the sentiment of the group drops further. Confidence in AI-led verbal communication sits at just 2.6/6, making it the lowest-rated area.
This reinforces a key boundary: The closer communication gets to human interaction, the less comfortable candidates become with AI.
Trust is fragile and easily broken
Candidates are increasingly cautious about who (or what) is contacting them, according to the survey:
- 41% would not respond to an unknown message or would verify it first
- 96% would take at least some caution before engaging
This could have major implications for AI-driven outreach:
- Brand clarity matters
- Authenticity matters
- Human back-up options are essential
Without these, AI risks undermining trust in your organisation, rather than improving efficiency.
Expectation vs preference: a critical gap
One of the most significant insights in the study is the gap between what candidates expect and what they actually want.
- Around half of candidates expect AI in chat or messaging
- But over 80% still prefer to communicate with a human across all channels
Perhaps, even more telling:
- 73% of candidates who expected AI in live chat still preferred a human.
In summary, candidates may recognise AI is part of modern recruitment, but that doesn’t mean that they want it to replace human interaction.
Where AI adds value (and where it doesn’t)
The candidates surveyed were pragmatic about AI’s strengths.
They see clear benefits in:
- Speed of response
- Quick, transactional interactions
But they still trust humans more when it comes to:
- Accuracy
- Detail
- Complex or nuanced queries
This highlights the opportunity, AI can enhance efficiency, but it shouldn’t be a substitute for human expertise.
Candidates think they can spot AI… but can they?
On the surface, candidates are confident that they can spot where AI is being used in the process:
- Average confidence in spotting AI vs human content: 4/6
But when tested, reality tells a different story. In multiple examples:
- Responses written by AI were often mistaken for human
- Accuracy across questions hovered around 50/50
This creates a tension between:
- Perceived control
- Actual ability to detect AI
The emotional response: “people want to speak to people”
“It feels disheartening and as though no human is actually tracking your application, meaning any time spent editing your CV, writing out your responses, etc might be wasted.”
“I think it’s fine for generic communication to speed up the recruitment process but there’s no substitute for the human analysis”
“I think it’s a great tool to assist with recruitment, but think human interaction should make the final decision as you will be working with them, not with AI”
The qualitative feedback brings the data to life. Candidates consistently emphasise the same theme:
- AI feels impersonal
- It can feel dismissive
- It reduces the sense that a real person is reviewing their application
Even candidates who support AI in principle draw a clear line:
- Use it for efficiency
- Don’t let it replace human connection
“People want to speak to people. If you have the knowledge that your applications are never reaching another human being, and are only being fed into AI, the recruitment process is almost unbearable.”
The real implication for employers
The data isn’t anti-AI, but it is a clear warning.
Candidates:
- Accept AI as part of the process
- Expect it in certain channels
- But still value human interaction above all else
The risk for employers is not using AI, it’s overusing it in the wrong places.
Final thoughts: Connection still wins
The strongest insight from this section of the study is simple:
If candidates are giving their time, effort and personal data, they expect a human connection in return.
AI can support the process.
It can make recruitment faster.
It can improve efficiency.
But it cannot replace the fundamental expectation driving candidate experience:
People want to speak to people.
At Amberjack, we believe that while AI can be good for speeding efficiencies throughout the process, it is no substitute for the human touch, which is crucial when building up a rapport with future employees and cementing your brand early on in the journey.
Part 2 of this blog series focuses on the pillar of Transparency.
You can get your copy of the full survey report Human First: Candidate Perspectives on AI in Recruitment here.
