PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchIn a 2024 Microsoft and LinkedIn survey, 71% of leaders said they would be more likely to hire a less experienced candidate with AI skills than a more experienced candidate without them. That is a stated preference in a specific comparison—not proof that AI skills always outweigh relevant industry experience or predict who will get hired.
What the 71% figure means
The figure comes from Microsoft and LinkedIn’s 2024 Work Trend Index Annual Report. The report describes a survey of 31,000 people across 31 countries and presents the hiring finding as a response from leaders to this statement:
![Claude AI for Beginners Bible: [5 in 1] The Ultimate Guide to Automate Your Work, Save Hours Every Week, and Use AI for Real-World Results](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/415+fSJacsL._SL160_.jpg)
“I would be more likely to hire a less experienced candidate with AI skills than a more experienced candidate without AI skills”
In other words, the comparison is between a less experienced applicant who has AI skills and a more experienced applicant who does not. It is not a finding that employers prefer AI skills to relevant industry experience in every hiring situation. The report does not establish that the less experienced candidate would actually be hired.
Why the headline needs qualification
VentureBeat’s September 3, 2024 headline described leaders as preferring AI-skilled candidates over candidates with “relevant industry experience.” Its article’s body refers to “actual experience,” while the primary report’s survey wording compares candidates by relative experience and whether they have AI skills. The report’s wording is the clearest guide to what the 71% measures. VentureBeat’s coverage is useful for context, but the stronger headline should not be taken as the survey’s exact finding.
The statistic is also historical: it describes survey responses reported in 2024, not a measurement of employer preferences in 2026. It indicates what leaders said they were more likely to do, not a causal effect of AI skills on hiring outcomes.
What “AI skills” meant in the report
The report focuses on generative AI aptitude, including the ability to use tools such as ChatGPT and Copilot. The finding is not specifically about advanced machine-learning engineering, building AI models, or holding a technical AI credential. It reflects a broader interest in nontechnical workers who can use generative AI tools as part of their work.
Other 2024 responses in the report add context, but they are separate survey findings:
- 66% of leaders said they would not hire someone without AI skills.
- 77% said early-in-career talent would receive greater responsibilities because they can delegate more work to AI.
These figures show that leaders in the survey anticipated a growing role for AI aptitude; they do not mean every employer applies the same standard or that every role requires the same skills.
The training gap behind the hiring interest
The report also points to a difference between employers’ stated interest in AI aptitude and the training workers reported receiving. In 2024, 39% of people globally who used AI at work said their company had provided AI training. Separately, 25% of companies planned to offer generative AI training that year; the report identifies this figure as unpublished data from LinkedIn’s 2024 Workplace Learning Report. These are 2024 figures, not current training rates.
Constance Noonan Hadley, an organizational psychologist at the Institute for Life at Work and Boston University Questrom School of Business, described the workplace challenge this way: “Now companies must renegotiate the ‘operational contract’ —the how of work—with their employees as AI puts more power into the hands of workers in terms of the way the job gets done.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How job seekers can use the finding
The result is a reason to consider building practical generative AI skills, not a promise that a course, certificate, or tool will secure a job. A useful approach is to connect general familiarity with AI tools to the actual work of a target role:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →- Learn the tools relevant to your work. Practice using generative AI for role-specific tasks rather than treating tool familiarity as an end in itself.
- Show how you apply them. Be prepared to explain a concrete workflow, what you contributed, and how you checked the output. The report does not prescribe a particular portfolio or credential.
- Look for structured learning if you need it. The report notes increased use of LinkedIn Learning courses designed to build AI aptitude among nontechnical professionals. It does not evaluate particular courses or establish that taking one improves hiring outcomes.
- Keep role experience in view. The survey compared candidates with different experience levels; it did not test AI aptitude against every job-specific qualification. Build AI capability alongside the expertise employers need for the position.
For personal financial planning, treat learning as an investment of time and possibly money whose payoff is uncertain. The survey does not show that purchasing a book or course produces a salary increase, job offer, or guaranteed hiring edge.
Quick Recap
What the survey cannot tell you
- Whether leaders’ stated preferences translated into actual hiring decisions.
- Whether AI skills caused better hiring outcomes, or how large any effect might be.
- Whether the result applies equally across countries, industries, occupations, or employers.
- What employers in 2026 currently prefer; the reported statistic is from 2024.
- Which course, credential, or book—if any—provides the best preparation.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
