Id like to offer slightly more objective view on this: I don't think anyone is going to disagree that this machine learning model doesn't work for selecting pe

Id like to offer slightly more objective view on this: I don't think anyone is going to disagree that this machine learning model doesn't work for selecting people that up the revenue of the company compared to someone it doesn't select. So there are 3 major uses cases for it from my perspective: 1. Established and proven tech companies understand that this is bogus, and choose not to use this. If they are looking to improve their hiring efficiency, they will most definitely do a review of this, and figure out that this is bogus. 2. Newer companies falsely believe in this tech and choose to use it - these are in the same boat as any other company that practices "bespoke" selection critera, i.e not hiring you because you wore khakis and polo to the interview for a non customer facing position instead of a suit, when in reality you may be the most qualified to do the job. You can't really criticize these, and Id argue that this is more of a loss to the company than yourself, as you would probably be better off at a different company anyways from overall long term money value perspective. 3. Bigger companies use this because of a special contract with HireVue to boost HireVue visibility or some available money to "try new things" to staff a few positions, most likely lower level that are easily replaceable so that if the program fails its an acceptable monetary loss. Here lies the biggest unfairness, due to the fact that people who are hired with HireVue's high scores are probably just as equally capable of doing the job as people who don't get hired, which at the minimum reinforces the belief that the model is working. That being said, these selection tactics are not new, and unemployment in US is low and still predicted to fall, and these jobs aren't career changing, so I would argue that this is not a huge issue either. So my personal opinion as a capitalist is that this isn't a big deal. In the same way that you never see the Meyers Briggs Personality test outside of lower level employment, you won't see this for any job that can determine your career. And, just like Meyers Briggs, there will be ways to game it. Hell, the tech even exists already (a la Deepfakes), all you need is a rough estimate of the model they use and what the positive traits are, and then you can do real time face and voice morphing. Its also generally more beneficial to think about adaptation rather than control or blame when it comes to stuff like this, because we can't un-invent the processing power and research makes machine learning possible at a scale. Someone could have made this open source, and then companies could internally implement their own tech stacks for video interviews, and we would be in the same boat.