The rise of artificial intelligence-generated profiles means that by 2028, globally, one in four job candidates will be fake, according to research and advisory firm Gartner. Once hired, an impostor can install malware to demand a ransom from a company, steal its customer data, trade secrets, or funds. That is one side of the coin. Here is the other: the fake recruiter. I have been receiving emails from recruiters with access to my biographical information on LinkedIn. I suspect some of these emails are generated by artificial intelligence or at least assisted with it. Here is the most recent:

“Hi Arthur,
I noticed your recent move into the deputy chief medical officer role at Partners Health Management, alongside your long-standing work across medical affairs and behavioral health leadership. That blend of payer, pharma, and clinical experience stood out.
I am working on a chief medical officer mandate with [company name withheld], where the scope expands into enterprise-wide clinical strategy, population health, and behavioral health integration across a national footprint.
It is a selective search I am handling directly, and your background came to mind given your experience across managed care, medical leadership, and clinical development environments.
Let me know if you would be open to learning more, and I will take it from there.
Regards,
[Name withheld], senior headhunter, executive talent partner”

I asked ChatGPT (ironically) to analyze the email. Based on the content and structure, ChatGPT estimated it was moderately to highly likely (roughly 60-80 percent) to be artificial intelligence-generated or assisted. Here is why:

• Features suggestive of artificial intelligence assistance: Highly polished, generic executive-recruiter tone; broad but non-specific praise; vague role description with buzzwords; no specific accomplishment, publication, or quantifiable detail cited; incorrect information (my “move” to my current position at Partners was not “recent”); and a template-style closing.
• Features that lower certainty: It is personalized with my correct role and organization, the hiring company is a real entity and plausible target, and the message is concise and not obviously formulaic in an exaggerated way.
• Additional red flags unrelated to artificial intelligence: A Gmail address from the sender rather than a corporate domain, a generic title, a “photo” placeholder without visible signature details, and a very early (6:23 a.m.) send time.

Most of all, the email reads like it came from a machine rather than a human. Even if a human sent it, it was likely produced using artificial intelligence or a standardized outreach automation tool. I simply replied that I do not correspond with artificial intelligence or assisted programs. My suspicions were “virtually” confirmed after a second email arrived 15 minutes later:

“Hi Arthur,
Understood, and I appreciate you saying that directly.
For what it is worth, I reached out based on your specific background across payer, pharma, and behavioral health leadership, not as part of any automated outreach.
I tend to keep my notes concise, but the intent is always to connect with individuals whose experience genuinely aligns with a particular mandate.
If the timing is not right or the opportunity is not of interest, I completely understand.
Either way, I appreciate the note and wish you continued success in your work.”

The follow-up email raised the probability of automated outreach to 70-85 percent, according to ChatGPT. It may still be a real recruiter using enhanced templates, but it does not read like tailored executive search correspondence. From having researched these instances, I can tell you the real purpose of these emails is to lead you down a rabbit hole where you gradually lower your guard and disclose information or engage in steps that create either financial, identity, or reputational vulnerability. Even when not a scam, enabled mass recruiting campaigns are designed to create artificial scarcity and ego engagement, drawing you into email exchanges and exploratory calls pumping you for information that benefits the recruiter’s pipeline more than your career. Here is a quick three-step authenticity check you can run in under 10 minutes:

Verify the sender’s identity

Search LinkedIn for the recruiter’s name, company’s name, and “headhunter” (or “executive recruiter”). Check whether the recruiter lists a recruiting firm and whether that firm has a real website. See if the Gmail address appears anywhere professionally.

• Red flag: No digital footprint, recently created profile, or mismatch between claimed employer and email domain.

Confirm the mandate independently

Check the company’s careers page for the advertised position. Look for press releases or industry chatter about executive searches. If appropriate, contact the company’s corporate office to confirm an active retained search.

• Red flag: No listing, no announcement, or the company denies knowledge of the recruiter.

Test for specificity

Reply briefly: “Thank you. Could you share the formal position specification and confirm the retained search firm you are representing?” Legitimate retained executive recruiters can provide a detailed position specification, confirmation of exclusive search status, a corporate domain email for follow-up, and a scheduled call through a traceable calendar system.

• Red flag: Evasive responses, pressure to move off-platform quickly, or requests for personal data early.

In short: The rabbit hole is progressive engagement without verification. It is a stepwise process where each interaction feels harmless, but you advance further into involvement before confirming the recruiter’s legitimacy. You move gradually through stages:

• Replying to the initial outreach
• Agreeing to a call or receiving additional emails
• Sending a curriculum vitae (or being referred to someone to create a more “professional” curriculum vitae, at your expense)
• Sharing compensation data
• Providing references
• Completing “confidential” forms
• Uploading documents to a portal
• Forking over money for the promise of a job (NEVER DO THAT)

Each step feels reasonable in isolation. None feels like a dramatic breach. But at no point have you independently confirmed:

• The recruiter’s identity
• The retained search firm
• The company’s authorization
• The legitimacy of the role

So, the relationship deepens before trust is earned. Psychologically, this works because of:

• Reciprocity (they compliment you; you respond)
• Consistency bias (once you reply, you are more likely to continue)
• Ego engagement (senior executive role)
• Time investment (harder to withdraw after effort spent)

The “rabbit hole” is not a single trap. It is incremental commitment in the absence of independent validation. In executive-targeted scams, that incremental slope is the mechanism, not a dramatic red flag. I engaged in over a half-dozen email exchanges the first time I was contacted by a fake recruiter. Now that I am wise to it, my instinct is to pause, mark the email as spam, and move on. My time and attention are assets. So are yours. Guard them accordingly.

Arthur Lazarus is a former Doximity Fellow, a member of the editorial board of the American Association for Physician Leadership, and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia. He is the author of several books on narrative medicine and the fictional series Real Medicine, Unreal Stories. His latest book, a novel, is JAILBREAK: When Artificial Intelligence Breaks Medicine.