[0] https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/will-macaskill-moral...
I think a lot of companies have deluded themselves into thinking they've designed some sort of unique interviewing system that can guarantee good job performance (instead of reducing the incidence of catastrophically bad performance), but honestly, job performance itself is very hard to measure in any objective way once you disregard the extremes.
Just because a misused tool is bad at doing the thing you're misusing it for doesn't mean that it doesn't have utility when used for its actual purpose.
Algorithm quizzes aren't the only way to reduce false positives. Can we say definitively that they are the best?
There's probably a place for practical programming tests, too, but whiteboarding algorithms and such seems to be more of a fraternity hazing/secret handshake ritual than anything else. Good if the skill you need to hire for is "Read and memorized 'Cracking the Coding Interview'", not really indicative of anything else.
I have a hard time following this conclusion - how do you know this?
This comment represents everything that is wrong with your technical interview process. Big yikes.
The lack of self-awareness displayed by that comment is kind of impressive. Especially the bit about being so keen on identifying "bad" candidates, not realizing that the entire point is that interviewers are actively bad at determining good vs bad candidates.
That's the entire point, you don't, you only think you do.