How Marketers Are Scaling With AI in 2026
61% of marketers say this is the biggest marketing shift in decades.
Get the data and trends shaping growth in 2026 with this groundbreaking state of marketing report.
Inside you’ll discover:
Results from over 1,500 marketers centered around results, goals and priorities in the age of AI
Stand out content and growth trends in a world full of noise
How to scale with AI without losing humanity
Where to invest for the best return in 2026
Download your 2026 state of marketing report today.
i built a new tool. it launched on product hunt today
a few years ago, i built a custom gpt for myself called “get a f#@&ing job”.
i was job hunting. and i noticed that every "ai resume tool" i tried started with your resume. then you’d find a job you wanted to apply for and you’d paste the job description and then it would generate a resume for you… regardless of how unqualified you were for that role. the tools didn’t work to make your resume better. they didn’t work to help users get a job. they worked to make money off folks who were just trying to get a job.
today i see companies offering services to blast your resume out to 100 companies, all at once. then another package that offers 200 applications sent on your behalf. my readers here know that spray and pray rarely ever works… especially in 2026. we know that 10 targeted and intentional methods of outreach is always going to perform better than 100 blasts.
we know this. so why would we waste the opportunity to apply for that job at that company that we really, really like…. and not give it our 100% best effort. if you’ve considered paying for these services before, please take this piece of advice and don’t. you will not only waste your money, but you will also waste your only chance to apply at that company for the next 1-2 years (100% serious here).
as someone who has been part of a workforce reduction twice in the past 3 years, i have become somewhat of a job hunting pro. in my most recent job search, i applied to 8 roles. i made it to the first round 6 times.
that's not luck. that's a system.
here's what i did.
i built what i called my work history system of truth. every role i've ever held. every metric i could remember. every win, every tool, every thing i was actually responsible for. 15 to 20 bullets per job. no bs, no bloat, no padded stats…. just the real stuff. then i fed all of it into a custom gpt i built myself and called it get a f#@&ing job.

The very first iteration of my project
when i found a role i wanted, i'd paste the job description in. the gpt would score my fit for that role (on a scale of 1 to 10), based on my actual background. not a template. not a generic profile. me.
i built the scoring criteria myself. i've spent a decade in staffing and recruiting. i've been on both sides of the hiring table more times than i can count. i know what a real match looks like, and i know what a "we'll keep your resume on file" looks like.
i started applying to anything i scored a 6 or above. i was not getting callbacks.
so i adjusted. 8 and above only.
that changed everything. 8.5 and above, i was almost certain to get to the first round. and any role where i scored a 9 or better… i was getting there about 90% of the time.
but here's the part nobody talks about.
when i stopped applying to roles i was underqualified for, something else happened. i got my time back. and because i was sending fewer applications, i had more time to spend on the ones i did send.
this matters more than most people realize.
when a recruiter posts a role, they receive hundreds of resumes. sometimes thousands. and the vast majority of those resumes look exactly the same. especially now. because everyone is using ai to apply. everyone. which means the recruiter's inbox is full of perfectly formatted, keyword-stuffed, totally generic applications that could have been written for any job at any company.

a day in the life of a tech recruiter
so how do you cut through the noise?
what stands out isn't a better template. it's specificity.
allow me to explain.
a recruiter opens your resume. they've already opened 200 today. they're not reading it. they're scanning it. they're looking for one thing: did this person actually read my job description, or did they just hit apply?
most people just hit apply.
the ones who don't… you can tell immediately. the language matches. not because they copied and pasted the job description into an ai and asked it to rewrite their resume around it (although that's closer than most people get). it's because when you're actually qualified for a role, you speak the same language naturally. your wins map to their problems. your experience reads like a direct answer to what they posted.
that's not a trick. that's fit.
and here's what a lot of job seekers don't realize: a cover letter is not a formality. it's your first conversation with that company. and most cover letters start with something like:
"i am writing to express my interest in the [job title] role at [company name]"…
bro…. they know. they can tell within the first sentence whether you wrote it for them or for everyone. and the ones that do get read, they say something specific.
"i noticed you're expanding into [x]. here's the time i did exactly that, and here's what happened." or "you mentioned [specific thing from the jd]. i've spent [x years] doing that exact thing. here are the numbers."
and one more thing. if the application has free-form questions, do not skip past them. do not treat them like a formality. do not copy and paste something generic and hope nobody notices.
this is a pre-qualification round. the recruiter designed those questions specifically to see who shows up and who phones it in. you have one shot to answer them. take your FN time. write something real. this is where you can actually separate yourself from the 200 other people who hit apply today… and most of them won't bother.
that's the whole game. it's not complicated. but doing it right takes time. and if you're applying to 200 jobs, you don't have time.
which brings us back to the whole point.
i took everything i just described and built it into a tool.
get a FN job starts with your resume. you upload it, and then it asks you 10 onboarding questions based on what you actually submitted. not generic questions. questions about your specific background, your actual wins, the things that don't always make it onto a resume but absolutely should factor into how you present yourself.
the more honest you are in that part of the process, the better. this is your career repository. it's your work history system of truth. and the more it knows about you, the harder it works for you when it matters.
from there, you paste a job description. any job. it scores your fit on a scale of 1 to 10 against your actual background, shows you the gaps, and generates a tailored resume and cover letter that uses your real numbers, your real experience, and the language of that specific role.
i also shipped a chrome extension. you can check your fit score directly from linkedin and other major job boards without copy-pasting anything. it's the part i probably use the most now.
it starts at $3. that's enough to build your career repository, run a few fit checks, and generate a resume and cover letter. i kept the barrier low on purpose. i want people to actually try it, not just think about it.
it launched on product hunt today.
if any part of what i wrote above hit close to home, go check it out. if you know someone who's been grinding through applications and not getting traction, send this to them. and if you like what you see, a review on launch day matters more than most people realize, and i would be eternally grateful if you could help push the launch on product hunt in any way possible.

get a FN job
as a thank you to my loyal readers, i am offering you a discount code SWAI for 15 free credits. if you run through all of your free credits and want more but can’t afford to make the purchase, let me know and i will happily provide some additional credits for free.
i will be back in your inbox on sunday with your regularly scheduled programming.
jay



