[1] I'm thinking of evolutionary-level time frames here. There are certainly problems on a shorter-term, individual level, which most of the comments address.

I am curious to see how the population changes over time as a result of increased freedoms for women. It's only really been a couple generations so far (and only in some countries), but now that women and men are on more equal footing when choosing a partner (and both sexes are more likely to settle outside their hometown) you end up with a lot more pairings that match career status and to some extent intelligence.

There's definitely going to be (on average) a difference in offspring between an MIT dude that married his secretary and one that married someone also from MIT, and for all we know the former may be healthier, especially as you extend this N generations. Of course that's a drop in the bucket relative to overall population size, but I think the effect could exist across various societal groupings.

So at least in the case of this one company, it seems they are selecting not only for neurodivergence, but also for prior inability to get/hold down a job. I think for the companies that are considering hiring, it is a cheaper way to test potential employees than the normal hiring process would be. They get a free trial and can start the person at a lower payscale if promising, so they can benefit if the resourcing company manages to get a couple of the people to a hirable state.

I would suspect there are also neurodivergent people who are more functional hired through the normal process, although maybe that varies by company. Certainly they're relatively common at FAANGs.