The Unfair Narratives
Across most domains, people have embraced AI with surprising grace. Students use it to learn (and, admittedly, sometimes to cheat). Writers to overcome writer’s block. Lawyers to structure arguments. Doctors to detect disease earlier and more accurately. Outside of understandable concerns about job displacement, AI is largely accepted as a productivity tool - something that augments human capability rather than replaces it.
However, the rhetoric surrounding AI in the hiring process is often far more critical. Some argue that it delegitimizes the candidate experience and others suggest it removes the “human element,” reducing people merely to data points. While there is some merit to these concerns, they overlook how AI is actually being used in practice. Hiring leaders are increasingly leaning into leveraging AI as a tool rather than an autonomous decision-maker. The challenge isn’t a lack of human judgment; it’s a lack of time to apply that judgment thoughtfully.
Sourcing strong candidates for every open role, vetting them effectively, onboarding them smoothly, and repeating that process hundreds or thousands of times is awfully challenging. The purpose of AI is to remove the time and efficiency constraints that prevent humans from being able to prioritize. By filtering noise and surfacing the right candidates earlier, AI allows recruiters and operators to spend more intimate time where it matters most - in real conversations, deeper evaluation, and better decision-making.
It’s Just Like GPS
It’s analogous to a driver’s GPS system. GPS didn’t replace drivers or decide where people should go. It simply removed the cognitive friction of navigation so drivers could focus on the road, traffic, and safety. AI clears the clutter so humans can drive the process with greater intention, not make the final call.
What Public Discourse Should Be
At a high level, hiring quality can be summarized by a simple equation:
Human Judgment × Available Time = Decision Quality
Most critiques of AI focus exclusively on preserving human involvement, while ignoring the second variable entirely. When teams index heavily on the “human element” without addressing time and data constraints, the outcome is often counterproductive: judgment becomes rushed, signal gets lost in noise, and, ironically, attention drifts away from the candidates who deserve it most — all of which help lead to worse outcomes for everyone involved.
Instead of eliminating human judgment from the equation, AI increases the efficiency with which humans can apply judgment using better data and clearer context.
Final Take
AI in hiring gets a bad rap. In reality, it adds context that helps recruiters make more informed, data-driven decisions while also creating the space to spend more meaningful, human time with the right candidates
While the concerns are understandable, they mischaracterize how AI is actually being used: not to replace human judgment, but to make it more intentional.
