Maybe they are ahead of the curve at finding that hiring people based on ability to exploit AI-augmented reach produces catastrophically bad results.
If so, that's bad for their mission and marketing department, but it just puts them in the realm of a tobacco company, which can still be quite profitable so long as they don't offer health care insurance and free cigarettes to their employees :)
I see no conflict of interest in their reasoning. They're just trying to screen out people who trust their product, presumably because they've had more experience than most with such people. Who would be more likely to attract AI-augmented job applicants and trust their apparent augmented skill than an AI company? They would have far more experience with this than most, because they'd be ground zero for NOT rejecting the idea.
If so, that's bad for their mission and marketing department, but it just puts them in the realm of a tobacco company, which can still be quite profitable so long as they don't offer health care insurance and free cigarettes to their employees :)
I see no conflict of interest in their reasoning. They're just trying to screen out people who trust their product, presumably because they've had more experience than most with such people. Who would be more likely to attract AI-augmented job applicants and trust their apparent augmented skill than an AI company? They would have far more experience with this than most, because they'd be ground zero for NOT rejecting the idea.