[esafak]

This is a screen, though; they are still going to interview you if you pass. The alternative is to screen candidates otherwise in a way that may lead you to be culled (e.g., by your resume) without a chance to get your foot in the door.

[gpm]

They are still going to interview if you choose to move forwards with this one sided time sink [1], and you pass. The first half of that criteria will filter out many of the good candidates.

Which as yanyu says is a signal the company isn't "willing to spend the effort, time, and money to provide a good recruiting process, [which is] a huge red flag for the kind of candidates you want and the kind of employee experience you provide".

Which circles around and creates even more incentive for good candidates not to participate.

There's no doubt a market on both sides for hiring mediocre candidates. Approximately everyone has a job after all, not just the best people, but a tool like this is clearly optimizing for that not for excellence.

[1] See the excellent description of why this is problematic as a candidate who values your own time here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45801853

[yannyu]

That's what makes people feel valued and human, needing to get past a robot before they're allowed to talk to people.

And to be clear, I think hiring today is completely broken already. This kind of thing is just one more step in the direction of marginalizing people who are already struggling to find work. In an already broken hiring system, these approaches to "save engineering time" or "drive a more efficient hiring process" exacerbate the divide between those who have jobs and those who are desperate to get a fair shot, and that’s what feels truly dehumanizing.

[esafak]

Logically, you should prefer a hiring system that casts a wider net using automation if you are struggling to find work, assuming the problem is getting an interview.