We are currently navigating a period of intense "Market Schizophrenia."
Just look at the recent discourse on LinkedIn (referenced in the image above). It perfectly captures the polarized, confusing reality facing professionals today. You are being shouted at by two completely opposite camps regarding the use of AI in your career:
This represents a critical binary trap. Both of these perspectives are fundamentally flawed, and following either one is professional suicide in the current landscape.
Here is the hard truth about why both extremes will fail, and the "Third Way" we must embrace to maintain ownership of our careers.
The first perspective argues that because you will eventually be in a face-to-face interview, you shouldn't use AI for your CV.
This is the "Luddite Fallacy." It equates effort with value. It assumes that suffering through manually typing every word makes the output more authentic.
This is dangerous because it ignores the competitive speed and data processing advantage of AI. While the purist spends a week agonizing over a cover letter, their competitor has used AI to analyze 10 years of industry trends, align their skills perfectly to the job description, and submit applications to five target roles.
Refusing to use AI for structure and speed isn't noble; it's bringing a knife to a drone fight.
The second perspective offers "copy-paste prompts" to "beat the ATS." This is the "Commodity Trap."
This approach treats your professional identity as a cheat code. It produces what I call "Hallucinated Competence"—smooth, well-written words that sound good but collapse under slight scrutiny.
If you use generic prompts, you become a "Generic Entity." You might pass the digital gatekeepers, but you will fail the human "sniff test" in the interview because you don't possess the deep ownership of the words on the page.
If total denial is obsolete, and copy-pasting is fraudulent, what is left?
The solution is to move away from the idea of "Generation" (AI writes for me) and toward "Amplification" (AI thinks with me).
We must adopt a "Cyborg Approach" to our careers. We don't use AI to fake the driver; we use AI to build a faster car.
To explain this to anyone who is "suicidal" about using AI, we must teach them the rules of engagement:
AI cannot invent your history; it can only structure it. You must provide the raw data of your achievements. You never ask AI to "write a bullet point about leadership." You feed it the facts of a specific crisis you solved and ask it to "extract the functional competency based on these facts."
The AI handles the syntax; you own the substance.
Don't use AI just to write. Use AI to argue. Instead of saying "Write my CV," try this prompt:
"Here is my draft CV. Act as a highly skeptical hiring manager for [Role X]. Critique this draft brutally and tell me exactly why you would NOT hire me based on this text."
This forces you to engage in critical thinking about your own career story, but at 10x the speed of doing it alone.
The purists are right about one thing: "You will be in the interview, not the AI."
If you used AI to lie, the interview will expose you.
If you ignored AI, you likely won't get the interview at all.
The future belongs to those who can synthesize their authentic human experience with the incredible leverage of machine intelligence. Don't be a Luddite. Don't be a cheat. Be an augmented human.
