AI Can Recommend, But People Still Need to Make the Decision

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how companies recruit, evaluate, manage, and retain employees. From resume screening and candidate ranking to performance analytics and workforce planning, AI-powered tools can make HR processes faster and more efficient.

But as these technologies become more powerful, lawmakers are increasingly asking an important question:

How much decision-making should we hand over to an algorithm?

California’s proposed SB 947 offers a glimpse into where workplace AI regulation may be headed—and reinforces something experienced recruiters have long understood: technology can provide valuable insights, but people still need to make the important decisions.

California’s SB 947 and the Rise of the “Human in the Loop”
As discussed in a recent article from CDF Labor Law LLP published by JD Supra, California’s SB 947 would place new restrictions on employers using automated decision systems (ADS) in employment decisions.

The legislation broadly defines automated decision systems to include tools using machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, and other AI techniques to make or assist with workplace decisions.

One of the most significant provisions would prevent employers from relying solely on an automated system when making disciplinary or termination decisions.

When an employer primarily relies on an automated system’s recommendation, a human reviewer would be required to examine and corroborate the information supporting that recommendation.

In other words, the technology can assist—but a person must remain accountable for the final decision.

What Does This Have to Do With Recruiting?
Although SB 947’s human-review requirements focus heavily on discipline and termination, the broader trend is highly relevant to recruiting and hiring.

Employers are increasingly using technology to:

·      Screen resumes and applications

·      Rank candidates

·      Identify skills and experience

·      Source potential candidates

·      Analyze assessments

·      Automate candidate communications

·      Evaluate workforce and performance data

These tools can dramatically improve efficiency. But they also create a risk: Are we allowing technology to narrow the talent pool before a qualified human ever evaluates the candidate?

A resume that doesn’t contain the right keywords may belong to an exceptional candidate. A nontraditional career path might be exactly what an organization needs. Leadership ability, communication skills, motivation, cultural alignment, and career potential aren’t always easily captured by an algorithm.

That’s where human judgment remains essential.

AI Should Enhance Recruiting, Not Replace Recruiters
At Professional Recruiters, we believe technology works best when it makes recruiters better—not when it attempts to replace them.

Modern recruiting platforms and AI tools can help identify candidates, organize pipelines, analyze information, automate repetitive tasks, and uncover talent that might otherwise be difficult to find.

But finding a name in a database isn’t the same as recruiting.

Experienced recruiters provide something technology cannot fully replicate: context.

A recruiter can understand why someone is considering leaving a position, what motivates them, whether their leadership style fits an organization, what they want from their next opportunity, and whether a seemingly unconventional background could actually make them an outstanding candidate.

Those conversations often reveal information that never appears on a resume.

The Growing Importance of Human Oversight
SB 947 is also part of a larger regulatory trend. California already has regulations addressing automated decision systems and employment discrimination, which took effect in October 2025. Other states and jurisdictions are also establishing requirements around AI-assisted employment decisions.

For employers, this means adopting AI shouldn’t simply be a technology decision. It should also involve HR, recruiting, legal, and leadership teams.

Organizations should understand what their systems are doing, what information they’re using, how recommendations are generated, and—most importantly—where human judgment enters the process.

The Future of Recruiting Is Human + Technology
AI isn’t going away, nor should it.

Used responsibly, it can make recruiting faster, more efficient, and more informed. It can free recruiters from administrative work and give them more time to do what they do best: build relationships, evaluate people, and connect organizations with talent.

But efficiency shouldn’t come at the expense of judgment.

California’s proposed SB 947 is another reminder that the future of work isn’t necessarily about choosing between humans and AI. It’s about determining where each provides the greatest value.

For recruiting, the winning formula may be surprisingly simple:

Let technology find possibilities. Let experienced people recognize potential.

At Professional Recruiters, we’ve been connecting companies with exceptional talent since 1977. Technology has changed dramatically during that time, but one thing hasn’t: great recruiting is ultimately about people.

This post references “Robots Can Recommend, But Real People Must Pull the Trigger: Inside SB 947,” by Warren F. Hodges of CDF Labor Law LLP, published via JD Supra in September 2026. Adapted by post from NPA WorldWide