I suppose a follow-up would then be to test 1: hires only made by algorithm vs 2: hires that had human initial screening and then a human interview, and maybe

I suppose a follow-up would then be to test 1: hires only made by algorithm vs 2: hires that had human initial screening and then a human interview, and maybe vs 3: hires that had algorithm initial screening and then human interviews. I think we often assume that #2 gives us the best chance at the right cultural/skill fit, and fall back to #3 when we don't want to give our recruitment departments enough money for the staff needed in #2. But it's possible that the in-person interview ends up affecting the interviewer's biases such that #1 provides a better overall result than #2 or #3. Complication certainly ensues when, as others said, the applicants (or the new Professional Application Assistant industry that will pop up) learns how to game the algorithms.