China's surveillance tech, originally built with IBM and other US companies in the 2000s, is now being sold as 'control-tech-as-a-service' globally. Geedge Networks ships turnkey censorship systems to Pakistan, Myanmar, and others—all while avoiding sanctions.
Good Morning from San Francisco, 👉 The job market broke. Both sides armed themselves with AI and shot each other in
AI has trapped job seekers and employers in a dysfunctional arms race. Workers mass-produce applications with ChatGPT; companies use AI to screen them. Result: record-low hiring confidence and a market that serves nobody well.
AI has trapped job seekers and employers in a dysfunctional arms race. Workers mass-produce applications with ChatGPT; companies use AI to screen them. Result: record-low hiring confidence and a market that serves nobody well.
💡 TL;DR - The 30 Seconds Version
👉 US added only 22,000 jobs in August, missing economist forecasts by 75% as unemployment climbed to 4.3%—highest since October 2022.
📊 Worker confidence in finding new employment crashes to 44.9%, the lowest since tracking began in 2013, while job searches now average 10 weeks.
🤖 AI creates hiring dysfunction as job seekers mass-produce applications with ChatGPT while employers deploy automated screening tools to manage the flood.
🏭 Big Tech cuts thousands of roles while offering $284,000 salaries for AI specialists, reallocating capital from general payroll to AI infrastructure.
🌍 The hiring rate hits Great Recession lows as employers add just 3 workers per 100 employees, creating a "low-hire, low-fire" market equilibrium.
🚀 Automation without guardrails deepens inequality by pushing opportunities toward networked candidates while screening out those relying on open applications.
AI hiring arms race traps workers and employers
Payrolls barely budged in August and the bots aren’t helping. The U.S. added 22,000 jobs while unemployment ticked to 4.3%, according to the August jobs report from BLS. At the same time, applicants are using AI to flood the zone with polished résumés while HR leans on AI to screen them. It’s efficiency theater, not traction.
The result is a standstill that feels personal. As The Atlantic chronicled this week, even prime-looking candidates are hurling dozens—sometimes hundreds—of applications into a void. HR teams say they’re swamped with look-alike submissions. So they crank up more automation. The human touch recedes. Everyone loses time.
Two flywheels are now locked together. On the employer side, AI in talent acquisition has moved from trial to default: writing job posts, ranking applicants, triaging outreach, and scheduling. LinkedIn is pushing further, rolling out its Hiring Assistant globally this month, with early adopters claiming fewer profiles to review, hours saved per role, and markedly higher InMail acceptance rates. That’s real process plumbing.
On the candidate side, generative tools are table stakes. Job seekers use them to tailor résumés and draft screening answers. Many practice with interview bots before facing…other bots. Some firms now run first-round interviews via AI agents that record responses and score language and tone. This meeting-of-the-machines is no longer a demo. It’s the default.
The topline is weak, but the internals are the story. Payrolls have “shown little change since April,” a four-month near-stall with health care gains offset by declines in federal roles. The median spell of unemployment is about 10 weeks—two weeks longer than in recent years—signaling slower matches. That’s tangible drift for real people.
Flow metrics confirm the chill. July’s JOLTS showed a 3.3% hires rate—roughly three hires per 100 workers—while quits sat at 2.0%, their lowest, steady level since the post-Great-Recession slog. Employers aren’t firing en masse; they’re just not adding. Economists call this a low-hire, low-fire equilibrium. Workers call it a wall.
Confidence has cracked, too. The New York Fed’s August survey showed the perceived chance of landing a new job after a layoff at 44.9%, the lowest in the series. That psychology matters. When people think switching is futile, they stop trying. Mobility withers.
Entry-level candidates and recent grads are bearing the brunt. Networks and referrals have always helped, but when AI screens the front door, warm intros become a requirement, not an edge. That makes mobility more unequal by design. It’s a quiet moat.
Racial gaps are widening as well. Black unemployment rose to 7.5% in August—more than double the white rate—often an early warning sign when the broader market softens. Youth joblessness is elevated, too. First-rung roles are vanishing or automated, and churn is too low to create openings.
Corporate behavior is adding friction. Big Tech is cutting deeply while redirecting capital to AI infrastructure and elite talent. Microsoft said in July it would trim nearly 4% of its workforce even as it races to expand AI spend. Intel is outsourcing large swaths of marketing to Accenture and automation. None of this is illegal or irrational. It just lowers the surface area where humans can get hired.
Meanwhile, platform incentives are perverse. Job networks profit from volume—more postings, more applications, more tools. Employers want fewer, better signals. Candidates want a fair shot and a reply. The marketplace optimizes for engagement. The labor market needs precision. Those are different objectives.
There are fixes that don’t require a grand bargain. Employers can publish structured, role-specific rubrics and run small, paid work samples instead of keyword hunts. Applicants can ditch the spray-and-pray, target fewer roles, and attach evidence of work, not adjectives. Platforms can rate-limit mass applies, down-rank templated spam, and expose more transparent feedback loops. Little frictions that restore signal.
AI isn’t the villain; indiscriminate deployment is. Used well, it should shrink queues and expand access by standardizing first looks. Used lazily, it multiplies noise and entrenches gatekeeping. The tools are neutral. Incentives aren’t.
Why this matters:
Q: How exactly do AI hiring tools screen applications?
A: AI systems scan resumes for keywords, analyze tone in cover letters, and rank candidates by algorithm-determined fit scores. Some companies use chatbots for initial interviews, recording responses and scoring language patterns. LinkedIn's new Hiring Assistant can shortlist candidates and draft outreach messages automatically.
Q: What's the "Fork in the Road" program mentioned in federal layoffs?
A: Trump administration program offering federal workers deferred resignation with continued pay through September 2025. About 154,000 civil servants accepted, receiving final paychecks this month. This contributes directly to rising Black unemployment rates, as federal jobs historically provided stable middle-class employment for minority workers.
Q: Which AI tools are job seekers actually using?
A: ChatGPT dominates for resume writing and cover letter drafting. LinkedIn offers GPT-4 powered career advice and AI-generated InMail messages that reportedly increase response rates 45%. Many practice with interview chatbots before facing actual AI screening. The tools have become "table stakes" for competitive applications.
Q: Why are recent graduates hit harder by this hiring freeze?
A: Entry-level workers lack professional networks to bypass AI screening systems. When algorithms filter initial applications, warm introductions become requirements rather than advantages. Youth unemployment exceeds 10% while first-rung positions vanish or get automated, creating what economists call "quiet moats" around opportunity.
Q: How does this compare to previous job market downturns?
A: The 3.3% hiring rate matches post-Great Recession lows, but the process dysfunction is unprecedented. Previous downturns featured direct human rejection; now applicants face algorithmic silence. The "low-hire, low-fire" pattern mirrors 2010-2012, but AI screening creates new barriers even when positions exist.
Marcus Schuler
Judge Alsup torpedoed Anthropic's record $1.5B author settlement, calling it incomplete and warning writers might 'get the shaft.' September deadlines loom before a December trial that could cost the AI company over $10 trillion in damages.
Google told a judge the "open web is in rapid decline" while executives publicly claim it's thriving. The contradiction exposes the battle over internet architecture as AI Mode approaches default status.
OpenAI backs "Critterz," the first AI-animated feature targeting Cannes debut. Nine months production vs. industry-standard three years, $30M budget vs. $100M norm. Hollywood's IP lawsuits against AI companies provide tense backdrop for collaboration experiment.
ASML commits €1.3B to become Mistral AI's largest shareholder in Europe's bid to challenge US tech dominance through vertical integration rather than pure scale. The Dutch chip giant's board seat signals a new model for European sovereignty.
Get the 5-minute Silicon Valley AI briefing, every weekday morning — free.
