Okay, let&#x27;s say you lose the genetic gamble, and you test poorly on these algorithms. I&#x27;ve seen no claim that they are are infallible, they just find correlations. If the correlation is not 1, it is measuring some people poorly (false negative).<p>So, you actually do quite well at work, but the test puts you in the low category. You are basically unhirable, or at only a fraction of the salary of your peers.<p>You end up with things like that recent Google hire thing that was all over social media - the author of the package for which they were hiring was declined because he didn&#x27;t pass some whiteboard algorithm thingy. At least that was random - if he interviewed again he&#x27;d have a chance of getting hired. Tests like this would render a section of humanity unhirable.<p>At least now, even though I am subjected to randomness, I can eventually get a job and prove myself. Then I can take that proof and use it to get other jobs. Not in Silicon Valley as a programmer, perhaps, where they ignore your resume in favor of &#x27;solve this 20 year problem in 30 minutes on a whiteboard while you pretend you didn&#x27;t just study this and are working it through for the first time&#x27;, but in the rest of the world.