At Indeed, we believe hiring is, and should remain, a human decision. 

AI has an important role to play in hiring. It can reduce friction, surface relevant information, and improve matching job seekers to roles. But it doesn’t fully account for growth potential, team dynamics, business priorities, and countless contextual factors that can’t be captured in data alone.

Technology should help people make better hiring decisions, but not make those decisions instead of them. Our products are designed to reduce repetitive work and make it easier to connect with relevant candidates, while keeping employers firmly in control of the decisions that matter most.

Keeping people in control is a product design choice

We intentionally design our products to keep people at the center of every hiring decision. 

Across sourcing, screening, and other hiring workflows, our AI features are designed to help employers make more informed decisions.

We design our systems so employers and recruiters can define and adjust their own hiring criteria and thresholds, and maintain visibility into candidates and workflows. We also clearly label AI-generated summaries, scores, highlights, job description content, and outreach content, so users know when AI is involved and can apply their own judgment. Employers can choose to review, edit, adopt, or ignore any AI-generated recommendation. This flexibility is what makes the difference between a tool that assists and one that decides.

We apply this approach across our core product suite:

  • Take Smart Screening. It helps employers evaluate applications earlier and faster against the requirements they define. This AI-powered tool generates candidate summaries and application fit scores to help recruiters prioritize where to start, and can automate next steps based on employer selections. Employers set those criteria, review the information, and decide how to move applicants forward. 
  • The same principle applies to Smart Sourcing and our recently launched Sourcing Assistant feature. The tool can automate time-consuming sourcing groundwork and draft personalized outreach, helping employers identify engaged and qualified candidates faster. But recruiters choose the role, define the hiring criteria, review early matches, refine recommendations over time, control outreach settings, and can pause or stop the assistant whenever they choose. 

AI helps handle repetitive work. Accountability for the hiring decision remains with people.

Building responsibly from the start

Human oversight is only one part of responsible AI. The systems behind these experiences also need safeguards.

Our product teams at Indeed carefully evaluate every point where AI interacts with a hiring workflow. Should AI generate this? Recommend it? Automate it? Or simply surface information for someone to evaluate? These aren’t just technical decisions; they’re product decisions rooted in how we believe hiring should work.

That thinking extends across the entire product lifecycle through three phases: anticipate, protect, and improve.

  • We anticipate potential risks early by testing AI systems for bias and safety issues before launch, alongside legal, privacy, and security reviews.
  • We protect users by implementing guardrails intended to prevent harmful or illegal content, clearly disclosing when people are interacting with generative AI, and building in feedback mechanisms
  • We improve our systems over time by continuously monitoring performance, gathering customer feedback, evaluating emerging risks, and continuing to test for potential bias and safety issues after launch so employers can use these tools with greater confidence as technology and hiring needs evolve.

Trust in AI isn’t a feature you ship once. It’s earned continuously, through governance that keeps pace with what technology can do.

Why this matters now

Hiring is deeply consequential. It affects livelihoods, teams, and businesses. 

At Indeed, we’re building products that reduce repetitive work, improve matching, and help employers move faster with greater confidence. But we also believe the decisions that shape careers and businesses should remain human ones. Our guiding principle isn’t simply asking what AI can do. It’s deciding where human judgment adds most value. That discipline is how we build technology that helps employers hire better, with people at the center.

FAQ: How AI Works in Indeed’s Hiring Products

Does Indeed’s AI make hiring decisions for employers?

No. Indeed’s AI is designed to support human decision-making, not replace it. Employers remain the ultimate decision-makers and are responsible for their hiring processes and criteria.

How does Indeed use AI in hiring?

Indeed uses predictive and generative AI to surface relevant matches, suggest content, generate summaries, and automate parts of sourcing and screening workflows. These features are intended to make hiring more efficient and informed, while leaving decisions to employers.

Can employers override or ignore AI recommendations?

Yes. Employers can edit screening criteria, adjust automations, review candidate information themselves, and use or ignore AI-generated content and recommendations.

How does Indeed let users know when AI is being used?

Indeed provides disclosures when users are interacting with generative AI, and is transparent about where AI is involved such as to generate candidate summaries, highlights, and scores. These disclosures are designed to help users understand when AI is assisting them, while maintaining a seamless hiring experience. 

How does Indeed build AI responsibly?

Indeed established a comprehensive approach that covers the entire product life cycle. Our responsible AI approach includes evaluating AI systems using legal, privacy, and security reviews where appropriate; bias and safety testing; red teaming (adversarial testing); content moderation guardrails; feedback mechanisms; and ongoing monitoring after launch.

Can AI-generated summaries or scores be the sole basis for a hiring decision?

No. All applications remain available to employers and AI summaries should not be used as the sole or most important factor in an employment decision.