AI tools and one-click application systems have made it easier than ever to pursue a job, but recruiters say the resulting volume is breaking the first stage of hiring. Applications can now be tailored, completed and submitted in seconds. Employers that once tried to remove every obstacle from the process are reconsidering whether some friction is necessary to distinguish serious candidates from automated or low-effort submissions.
Andrew Stockwell, formerly head of people at software-buying company Vendr, told Wired that a role once attracted a few dozen applications, or perhaps 100. Within the past year, comparable listings began drawing hundreds and sometimes more than 1,000. He described some as fake candidates and many others as AI-written applications that stretched the truth and looked increasingly alike.
Application volume has outgrown recruiter attention
The change combines a tighter labor market with tools that make applying nearly effortless. US job openings reached 12.3 million in March 2022 before declining for two years. Since mid-2024, openings have stayed around seven million, varying by roughly 500,000. At the same time, AI can rewrite résumés and cover letters, while browser extensions and application services can submit many forms with limited human involvement.
LinkedIn told Wired that submissions per applicant have risen 46% compared with February 2020. Applications are up 22% since ChatGPT’s public launch. The company has introduced limits intended to reduce automated and low-quality submissions and is rolling out a feature that warns apparently underqualified applicants when a role may not fit them.
For recruiters, the problem is not simply more reading. Good candidates become harder to identify while weak or fabricated profiles can slip through. Ophir Samson, head of voice AI at recruiting platform Greenhouse, said employers that sought a seamless experience found themselves receiving 2,000 applications in 24 hours. Hiring teams then spend their time adjusting filters and giving résumés only brief attention.
Employers are adding new gates to the funnel
Recruiters now tell Samson they want some difficulty restored to the process. AI interviews are one response: they can collect more information than a résumé and may separate serious applicants from bots or people applying indiscriminately. Other companies may introduce strict knockout questions or move skills tests earlier.
These measures shift the burden rather than proving the hiring process is fixed. Automated systems have screened résumés for years, and candidates may now face additional AI evaluation because employers cannot manually review the volume created by application automation. Tessa White, a former HR executive, told Wired that AI still cannot reliably assess a person’s potential and that the résumé-based process itself needs a larger redesign.
The need for filtering also differs by occupation. Some skilled trades still face more employer demand than worker supply, making a large applicant pool welcome. White-collar knowledge roles have fewer openings and less movement, so a new listing can attract an immediate avalanche.
Human connections gain value as open access fails
One consequence is greater reliance on referrals and internal hires. Stockwell argues that personal connections can become the only practical route around an overloaded application system. That may help recruiters find a manageable shortlist, but it can favor candidates whose backgrounds resemble those of existing employees and work against diversity.
Stockwell now experiences the market as an applicant after leaving Vendr in February. He treats networking as a full-time effort and estimates that fewer than 2% of his online applications lead to a phone interview. His experience does not measure the entire market, but it illustrates how someone familiar with hiring systems can still disappear inside them.
The emerging push for friction is therefore a response to scarcity of attention, not a desire to make job seeking needlessly difficult. Employers need evidence that a candidate is genuinely interested and qualified; applicants need a fair chance to be seen without turning every opportunity into a contest in automated volume.
AI has reduced the cost of submitting an application, while also encouraging recruiters to automate more of their response. Unless the first stage can capture meaningful signals, both sides remain trapped in an escalating cycle: more applications produce more filters, and more filters encourage candidates to apply even more widely.
