The Nursery Rhyme Nobody Saw Coming
You've probably heard of Jack and Jill, the AI recruitment platform promising to revolutionise hiring.
And then there's Dex, the algorithmic screening tool that's supposedly going to make human recruiters obsolete.
They went up the hill to fetch the future of recruitment.
Except they didn't bring back water. They brought back the same broken bucket we've been carrying for years, just shinier, faster, and marketed with better deck slides.
And now? They're tumbling down.
Not because the technology doesn't work. It does, brilliantly, at exactly what it's designed to do.
They're tumbling because everyone finally realized what they can't do: the actual recruitment work that determines whether a hire succeeds or fails.
What Platforms Like Jack and Jill and Dex Actually Deliver
Let's be specific about what these AI platforms excel at:
Jack and Jill handles end-to-end automation: Scrapes millions of profiles, identifies keyword matches in seconds, generates personalized outreach at scale, conducts standardized video interviews, scores responses algorithmically, automates scheduling and follow-ups.
Dex focuses on the decision layer: Predicts candidate success based on historical data, eliminates bias through algorithms, recommends optimal candidates with confidence percentages, integrates seamlessly with existing ATS platforms.
Together, they can process 1,000 candidates while you're still reading the first proper CV of your morning.
Impressive? Absolutely.
Revolutionary? In the same way a faster horse was revolutionary before someone invented the car.
Because here's what nobody mentions in the demo: they're optimizing for the wrong things entirely.
The Fundamental Flaw: Recruitment Is Human, Not Algorithmic
These platforms make one catastrophic assumption: that recruitment is fundamentally a matching problem that can be solved through better algorithms.
It's not.
We've seen this play out with AI SDRs. VCs pumped millions into the idea that you could completely automate outbound sales. And yes, the technology worked. Emails got sent. Meetings got booked. Metrics looked great.
But then prospects started ignoring them. Delete. Delete. Delete.
Because nobody wants to be sold by a bot when they're making a serious decision.
The same principle applies to recruitment, only more so.
I'm not going to invest my entire career based on a conversation with an algorithm. I'm not going to relocate my family because an AI told me the culture fit score is 87%. I'm not going to leave a secure job because a chatbot sent me a compelling sequence.
Sometimes you need to be sold. Sometimes you need to meet someone face-to-face. Sometimes the decision gets made over Thai food when you finally ask the question you've been holding back for three weeks.
That's not a bug in the system. That's the entire point.
Recruitment is fundamentally a human experience. It cannot be replicated by code, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm.
The Three Things Platforms Like Jack and Jill and Dex Cannot Do
After watching implementations across dozens of companies, three fatal gaps emerge:
1. They Cannot Build Trust
Trust is built through consistency over time. Following up even when nothing's happening. Checking in after six months. Remembering previous conversations. Saying "Actually, this role might not be right for you" instead of trying to close every candidate.
AI can simulate personalization. It cannot create genuine trust.
Our analysis of 500+ placements shows that candidates who had multiple conversations with the same human recruiter had 73% higher offer acceptance rates than those processed through automated workflows, even when the opportunities were objectively similar.
Trust compounds. Algorithms don't.
2. They Cannot Sell Authentically
AI can match "wants management role" to "management role available."
It cannot say: "I know you want to move into management, but here's why an IC role at this company would actually accelerate that path faster. They promote from within, the current VP started as an SDR three years ago, and if we position you correctly, you could be leading a team within 18 months instead of getting stuck at team lead level somewhere else."
That's not matching. That's selling. And selling requires understanding what drives this specific person and constructing a narrative that helps them see a better path.
3. They Cannot Exercise Contextual Judgment
The candidate with two short stints on their CV: job-hopper or someone who had the courage to leave bad situations twice?
The six-month gap: red flag or someone who cared for a sick parent and now has renewed energy?
The "overqualified" candidate: flight risk or someone exhausted from a toxic environment who genuinely wants stability?
AI sees patterns. Great recruiters see people.
The Tumbling Down: What Actually Happened
Companies that went all-in on automated recruitment saw the same pattern:
Month 1 to 3: Incredible efficiency. Shortlists in days. Everyone impressed.
Month 4 to 6: Quality concerns emerge. "They look good on paper but don't perform." Attrition spikes.
Month 7 to 9: Real costs appear. Bad hires churn. Targets missed. Teams demoralized. CFO calculates that "cheap, fast recruitment" cost £200k in lost productivity.
Month 10+: Quiet return to human recruiters. But now with worse reputation and skeptical clients.
The platforms didn't fail because the technology was bad. They failed because they solved the wrong problem.
The Future: Human-in-the-Loop, Not Human-Out-of-the-Picture
Here's the uncomfortable truth for recruiters: platforms like Jack and Jill and Dex failing doesn't mean you're safe.
It means you need to get better.
These AI platforms exposed something important: a lot of what recruiters were doing was administrative processing that should be automated. CV screening. Keyword matching. Calendar coordination. Follow-up emails.
But when companies tried to automate everything, they discovered what actually matters: the human judgment, relationship building, and authentic selling that determines whether a hire succeeds.
The winning model isn't AI or human. It's human-in-the-loop.
AI handles what AI does best: sourcing candidates at scale, summarizing videos and CVs, identifying patterns, managing logistics.
Humans handle what humans do best: strategic intake, relationship building, contextual judgment, authentic selling, outcome ownership.
But here's the critical part: the human in the loop has to be good at the human work.
What Recruiters Need to Do Differently
If AI is handling the admin, recruiters can't hide behind "I'm too busy screening CVs" anymore. You have to step up.
Stop being CV forwarders. Become strategic advisors. Spend time understanding the client's business model, growth trajectory, team dynamics, and actual hiring needs (which are often different from the job spec).
Stop running script-based calls. Build genuine relationships. Invest in multiple conversations with candidates. Understand motivations. Position opportunities authentically. Follow up even when nothing's happening.
Stop relying on gut feel. Exercise informed judgment. Use data and frameworks to assess traits like coachability, grit, and curiosity. Know when a career gap is a red flag and when it's a green flag. Make decisions based on evidence, not vibes.
Stop celebrating placements. Own outcomes. Follow up at 30, 60, 90 days. Understand what's working and what's not. Use that intelligence to get better at matching.
The recruiters who survive aren't the ones fighting AI. They're the ones using AI to eliminate the busy work so they can focus entirely on the strategic, relational work that actually determines hiring success.
Where meritt. Fits: AI That Facilitates, Humans That Execute
At meritt., we use AI extensively. But we're not trying to replace recruiters.
We're trying to make them better.
How we use AI:
We use AI to source the right candidates from millions of profiles. We use AI to summarize videos and CVs so recruiters can quickly understand what matters. We use AI to identify psychometric patterns that predict success.
But there's always a human in the loop.
That human is the recruiter. And that recruiter uses the time AI saves them to do the work that actually matters:
Strategic intake sessions that uncover real hiring needs, not just fill a job spec.
Relationship building through multiple conversations where trust compounds over time.
Authentic selling that positions opportunities based on individual motivations and career goals.
Contextual judgment that sees beyond the CV to understand the person and their potential.
Outcome ownership through post-placement follow-up and continuous improvement.
This isn't AI recruitment. This is expert recruitment facilitated by AI.
We handle the noise so recruiters can focus on the signal. We eliminate the admin so they can invest in the relationships. We provide the data so they can exercise better judgment.
But the recruiter has to step up. They have to be good at the human work. They have to care about outcomes, not just placements.
Because if they're not doing that work well, then honestly, the AI might as well take over.
The Test: Are You Doing the Work That Matters?
Here's the uncomfortable question every recruiter needs to answer honestly:
If AI handled all your admin tomorrow, would you know what to do with the time?
If your answer is "I'd finally have time to build real relationships, exercise proper judgment, and own outcomes," then AI is your superpower.
If your answer is "I don't know, I've always just processed CVs and made calls," then you need to step up fast.
Because the future doesn't belong to recruiters who resist technology.
It belongs to recruiters who use technology to become more human, more strategic, and more valuable than ever.
The Moral of the Story
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch the future of recruitment.
Dex came tumbling after.
They fell because they forgot the most important thing: recruitment isn't about finding candidates faster.
It's about finding the right candidates and making sure they succeed.
Speed without judgment is just expensive failure delivered quickly.
Efficiency without relationships is just scalable mediocrity.
Automation without care is just algorithmic indifference.
The question isn't whether AI will change recruitment. It already has.
The question is: will you use it to become better at the human work that actually matters, or will you keep doing the administrative work that AI does better than you ever could?
Because at meritt., we're not building another Jack and Jill or Dex.
We're building the platform that helps great recruiters become exceptional.
And if you're ready to step up, we're ready to help.