Should You Use AI to Write Your CV?

Yes.

But probably not in the way many people are using it.

AI can be extremely useful when working on a CV. It can help you:

• organise information;
• improve wording;
• shorten sentences;
• identify repetition;
• suggest alternative phrasing;
• compare a CV with a job description;
• generate questions that help uncover achievements.

What it cannot reliably do on its own is decide: What should your professional story be? And that is often the harder part.

AI is good at rewriting what you give it

If you write: Responsible for managing client relationships and ensuring customer satisfaction. AI can produce ten more polished alternatives. Some may sound excellent.

But if the underlying statement is generic, more elegant language does not make it more valuable. AI cannot know that the important part was actually:

• you retained the company's largest account;
• redesigned the client-service model;
• reduced escalations;
• expanded the relationship into three new markets.

Unless you tell it. The quality of the output depends heavily on the quality of the underlying information.

AI does not automatically know what matters

A CV requires selection. Suppose you have 20 years of experience. Which achievements deserve space? Which early roles should be reduced? Which aspects of your current job support the next role? Which details are distracting? Which career transition needs explanation?

These are not simply writing questions. They are positioning decisions. AI can offer suggestions. But it does not know your market, your ambition, your credibility or the context of your career unless you provide all of it accurately.

Generic prompts create generic CVs

If you ask: Write me a professional CV for a senior manager. you will probably receive professional-sounding language. You may also receive phrases such as:

• results-driven;
• strategic leader;
• dynamic professional;
• proven track record;
• exceptional stakeholder management.

None of these is inherently wrong. The problem is that thousands of other people can generate exactly the same phrases. A senior CV should sound like you, not like an AI's idea of a senior professional.

AI tends to make people sound more impressive than the evidence supports

This is one of the risks I see most clearly. A modest achievement becomes: Spearheaded a transformational initiative that revolutionised operational performance. Perhaps you actually: Improved the monthly reporting process.

The first version sounds stronger. It may also be ridiculous. Credibility matters more than impressive language. I would always choose a precise statement over an exaggerated one.

AI can accidentally change meaning

Suppose you tell an AI: I supported the Head of HR with the implementation of the performance appraisal process. It may rewrite this as: Led the implementation of a company-wide performance management framework. Those are not the same thing.

If you submit the second version, you may be challenged on it in an interview. Every AI-generated statement needs to be checked against what you actually did.

AI can be useful for identifying gaps

One of the better uses is asking the system questions. For example:

• What information is missing from this achievement?
• What would a recruiter want to understand about the scale of this responsibility?
• What questions should I answer to make this bullet more specific?

That can help you surface details you had forgotten to include. AI becomes more useful as a thinking aid rather than a substitute for thinking.

AI can help tailor, but do not let it invent

You can ask AI to compare your CV against a vacancy and identify:

• relevant experience that is underemphasised;
• terminology differences;
• skills the role appears to prioritise;
• areas where the evidence is weak.

Useful. But if it tells you: Add strategic transformation experience, and you do not have strategic transformation experience, the answer is not to add the phrase anyway. The application should become more relevant, not less truthful.

AI cannot see you the way a recruiter sees you unless you ask the right questions

This is where human judgement still matters considerably. When I look at a professional profile, I may think:

• This person is describing themselves as a project manager, but the strongest thread in their career is actually transformation leadership.
• They are targeting Director positions, but the CV is still written at Manager level.
• Their LinkedIn suggests one direction while their CV suggests another.

Those are positioning observations. They come from interpreting the whole career and comparing it with how hiring decisions are made. AI may eventually identify similar patterns if given sufficient context. But most people do not give it that context. They upload a CV and ask: Improve this. That is not the same exercise.

So should you use AI?

Yes.

I would use it for:

• editing;
• brainstorming;
• challenging wording;
• identifying repetition;
• comparing terminology;
• generating questions;
• testing clarity.

I would not outsource to it:

• deciding your career direction;
• deciding what your professional identity should be;
• choosing which achievements matter most;
• inventing accomplishments;
• determining the level at which you should position yourself;
• making judgement calls about complex career history without careful review.

The best CV still requires judgement

Technology can make writing faster. It does not remove the need to decide: What does this person need the market to understand about them? That remains the central question.

And it is why a good CV is not simply well written. It is well positioned.