I suppose a follow-up would then be to test<p>1: hires only made by algorithm vs<p>2: hires that had human initial screening and then a human interview, and maybe vs<p>3: hires that had algorithm initial screening and then human interviews.<p>I think we often assume that #2 gives us the best chance at the right cultural&#x2F;skill fit, and fall back to #3 when we don&#x27;t want to give our recruitment departments enough money for the staff needed in #2.<p>But it&#x27;s possible that the in-person interview ends up affecting the interviewer&#x27;s biases such that #1 provides a better overall result than #2 or #3.<p>Complication certainly ensues when, as others said, the applicants (or the new Professional Application Assistant industry that will pop up) learns how to game the algorithms.