Do you realize that your product will only lead to more time being wasted on the side of the applicants, who are already the weaker party? How do you justify that?
Let me just apply one example. A few years ago I was screening candidates over a 30-minute live coding interview covering pretty day to day stuff. That required a 30 minute investment from the applicant in what is a high-stress situation for many. I can't tell you how many times they seemed very stressed simply because they had to code in a live interview setting knowing someone is actively watching what they are doing.
Now compare that to a 20-minute screening interview where most of that pressure is gone. You can do it whenever you want to.
That is my rationale behind it, thinking both as an applicant and as a hiring manager.
Why do you think this leads to more wasted time?
Also, your 20 vs 30 minute calculation ignores that companies are incentivized to conduct more screening tests if it becomes practically free for them. But the number of positions stays the same. So if instead of 10 screening calls they do 16 tests for one position, that's already more time being wasted, even if the tests are 1/3 shorter. And realistically, the number will shoot up much more.
For your last point, a review takes on average 5 minutes for a hiring manager. And I think screening more is not inherently a problem. Imagine they turned down the dial on their CV filters and had more applicants do a technical screen - wouldn't that give more applicants an opportunity to shine? In most cases it unfortunately is a numbers game.
They'll keep running screenings after they've got someone they're almost sure they are going to hire, because if the deal falls through its better to have candidates in the pipeline.
They'll run screenings before they bother to evaluate if they're even interested in a candidates skill set, because you've made it cheaper to filter out candidates for lack of technical skills than lack of job fit. (And no forcing them to meet the candidate once before running this tool will not change the fact that they will do this)
And so on and so forth. Which is ironically why using this tool would filter the best candidates from the hiring pipeline while simultaneously making life worse for everyone who isn't one of the best candidates and who does have to put up with many companies wasting their time to get a single job offer.
How many companies still ask for take-home exercises?
how its gone? Candidate is still being judged, but now by unknown potential AI judge without understanding how he will be judged..
Let's look at two cases to see why this is: Case 1: company does 10 30 minute in-person technical interviews for a role for equally qualified candidates, doesn't use automated testing. Every candidate knows that because they're talking to a human, so they know they're dealing with a human hiring process that deals with time constraints. They KNOW that they're one of a small group of people selected to move forward. They can reasonably calculate a value for their in-person technical interview as having a 10% chance of success. If they do 7 interviews like this they have a >50% chance of getting hired by someone, which would take them only 3.5 hours of interview time to achieve. Each such hiring process has only take up a combined 5 hours of candidate time.
Contrast this with case 2: company uses your system, and so technically screens 1000 equally qualified candidates in the same period with no human interaction. The candidate now has no idea where they stand in the applicant pool, but they effectively have a 0.1% of getting hired by this company. If they do 666 interviews, they still don't have a 50% chance of getting hired by any company doing interviews like this, and they will have spent two whole weeks of their life not eating or sleeping, just doing interviews. That company will have wasted three weeks of candidate time conducting this round of interviews.
Furthermore, the 10 minute time difference is irrelevant, the candidate already doesn't care when they do the interview, and the pressure in no way lessened. They still have to perform in a 30 minute window, and they will still be nervous. The only difference is the recorded screening is more impersonal, which allows the candidate less opportunity to make a human impression on the hirer.
Your system assumes the applicant's time has no value.