I definitely appreciate the sentiment that everyone should negotiate in good faith, but until you are in front of your future manager and they explain very clearly what the job entails (whether virtual or in person), nothing is to be believed.
Wasting a company's time and money is something they already accept. If they didn't, they would optimize their process for minimal time spent.
It's not ridiculous in my opinion to want to talk to (and ask questions of) a potential candidate.
If you don't like interviews, I would look into contracting, as companies generally take on contractors very easily.
I would remove multi round interviews with 7 different people and multiple calls backs. The in-person interview should be one and done, just like a music audition.
Why? Because a company can fire me on day one if they want. The idea that we should put $10,000 worth of man hours into screening someone before they begin working, when employees are still legally interchangeable seems kind of like a charade to me.
Employees don't like to see their colleagues fired quickly, but if it's for a deserving reason (candidate couldn't do the things they said they could do in interview) then the team really will move on quickly.
When you're paying out $120,000 a year for people to flip bits, the team accepts that turnover might occur a little bit more frequently that corporate middle management.
Job safety is insanely strong here, if you pass probation it's extremely unlikely you can be fired. Even if your job is not required anymore there is a "first-in-last-out" policy which would mean anyone hired after you would have to go first.
So there is huge financial incentive to ensure you only hire the right people.
Maybe programmers in Cali are able to negotiate different contracts. But like 95% of non-state workers can be fired instantly I imagine in the US.
Cheers!!