Recruiter’s AI-generated rejection email leaves candidate name and editing instructions untouched
A post on Reddit’s r/recruitinghell talked about someone who applied for a content strategist role at a SaaS company in June and received their rejection four months later. The email opened normally enough. It was polite, standard, professionally worded.
Then came the footer that was clearly never meant to be seen:
“Here’s your rejection email for John, content writer rejection. I’ve kept the tone polite but firm. Please insert the candidate’s email address here. Would you like me to make any changes to the tone or wording?”
The recruiter had pasted the AI output directly into the email without reading it back. The candidate’s name was wrong. The placeholder instruction to insert the email address had not been removed. The offer to adjust tone or wording remained intact.
“Had to read it twice because what does one even say to this,” the original poster wrote.
Four months in and still not getting a response, they had already seen the rejection coming. In fact, they thought it since week three. What left them genuinely puzzled was how things turned out: how does an email like this leave a company without a single person noticing?
The answer, they noted, was the role they had applied for. “I applied for a content role. I would’ve been the person writing these emails, and I’m pretty sure I would’ve caught the placeholder at least.”
What Reddit said
One commenter sardonically proposed escalating: “Add their manager to the email and respond: ‘Hey, if you’re looking for an employee more detail-oriented than Matthew, I’m available.’”
Another suggested a more pointed approach: “Reply and copy some higher-ups with a note about how you would prefer not to interact with a company that needs to prompt for a rejection letter. That’s beyond lazy.”
One gave a general observation: “Let’s let AI make up the rejection letter. Recruiters will use generic responses and just change the ‘To:’ field, but they’re getting real lazy now, and even more so, not even trying to hide that they used AI for the rejection. Real professional there.”
Enjoying this article?
Subscribe to get more stories like this delivered to your inbox.
Another netizen summed up the whole situation: “The irony is that it’s a rejection for a writer.”
And one offered a painful commentary on the reality applicants usually face: “It’s painful to get rejected by people who are less qualified and yet at the job and making decisions about someone more qualified than them. That’s the case with HR in general.”
Ultimately, for the original poster, it is not the rejection that stings. It is what the rejection reveals about how seriously the application was taken.
Writer