If you’re a large tech co with a big brand and a salary scale that ranks at the top of Levels.fyi, you probably get a lot of applications. So a good interview process is one that weeds out people who wouldn’t do well at your company. To do well at a large tech company, you need to (and I’m painting with a really broad brush, but this is true for 90% of roles at these companies): 1. Some sort of problem-solving skill that’s a mix of raw intelligence and/or ability to solve problems by pattern-matching to things you’ve seen before. 2. Ability/commitment to work on something that may not always be that intrinsically motivating, in the context of getting/maintaining a well-paying job at a large, known company. Hopefully you can see where I’m going with this. Basically, the very criticisms thrown at these types of interviews are the reason they work well for these companies. They’re a good proxy for the work you’d be doing there and how willing you are to do it. If you’re good at pattern matching, and are willing to invest effort into practicing to get one of these jobs, you’ll probably do well at the job.”

Which is also related to The rise of the non-expert expert in the pattern-matching thing