If we must do these tests, I should be able to take one or a few of these and keep that as a record and not have to do them again. But instead, I have to repeat the process for every company that gives them (recently, Berkshire-Hathaway and it had to be done before anyone would even speak about the position). These things rarely test for job-specific skills and are supposedly generalized intelligence tests, so the skills should be widely applicable, and therefore I shouldn't have to repeat this often. Hell, I do less for a drivers license renewal and 2 tons of metal at 60 mph is more lethal than most jobs behind these tests. Typically they've been math, reading comprehension, word association, memory, personality, and abstract/spatial thinking, which, frankly, was already done through high school and college. If the goal was finding signals for successful applicants, they already have had these signals.
To me, that says they're less interested in finding out how smart you are, and it's really more of a filtering tool where science is being used to give it more credibility than it deserves.
And of course, referring to the article, because it's AI, there's a gray area of accountability that I don't think the legal process has caught up with yet.
This stuff is totally out of this world crazy. I am reasonably intelligent, I did an IQ test when I was 12 and it was 130...I am extremely bad at relatively basic elements of life and work. I am good at other things but there is no way this can all be measured or, even, quantified. What is more: the main thing determining my ability is still experience, and my skills change significantly over the course of a few years. This isn't how statistics or science is really supposed to work. Slightly obviously, and contrary to what people think, this entrenches inequality.
I understand why companies do this:
* Hiring is hard. It is hard to get people who are actually good at hiring, there are no courses for this at university, there are no real rules outside of experience. Ironically, companies get over this by doubling down on their weaknesses.
* Underemployment is massive. It used to be hard to apply for a job, everyone just shotguns apps out now, and no-one has a job they want. Employers can do whatever: I am in the UK, even for menial tasks like working in the supermarket, they are doing weird, totally unscientific tests.
* Everyone is terrified of hiring. Employment lawyers get richer, laws get more complex, and the risk of being villified in the press for an interview gone bad are massive. Ironically, these totally "objective" processes just solidify inequality. They are designed with context, there is no totally abstract notion of intelligence that is relevant to the work place, they are designed to produce stratification in intelligence that likely does not translate to any real-world scenario. These approaches cause the thing they are trying to prevent because the thing has become so terrifying for companies.
Just my 2c, but this stuff is, imo, one of the worst modern corporate behaviour. Whether you think it is right or wrong morally, the outcomes are not good...the solution to bad hiring processes isn't psuedoscience. It is: hiring people who can do their job (again, these are linked, I have noticed that some companies are in the death sprial...they have bad processes that hire bad people, when a company does it well they just exist totally outwith this cycle).