> Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. I would think that's one of the primary concerns here, is that we can pretty much guarantee

> Not that this would justify it, but I'm curious if it even works. I would think that's one of the primary concerns here, is that we can pretty much guarantee that it doesn't work. Then end result would turn hiring processes into a kafka-esque hellscape where reason has no bearing and candidates are essentially selected at random. Given how infuriating the current crop of simulated customer service agents are, I can't imagine bringing anything like this to job selection would be good for any of us, save for the leadership team who gets to tout their cost-saving plan and give themselves a bigger bonus. Edit: ugh after reading the article I'm so disappointed that the regulations amount to some pretty weak auditing and transparency requirements. I was hoping this was an outright ban. It seems the laws have been rewritten by the cooperations. It gives candidate "right" to ask questions about their use and possibly opt out, but all that means is anyone who speaks out will be unhireable. I mean what company is going to hire anyone who starts asserting their rights up front?