Because this companies defined the goal to replace humans with AI what didn't happen. What happened is that the humans can work faster and have more coffee breaks while the AI iterates for the next review and iteration round by that human.
The AI bros industry needs to keep the impression that employees can be replaced with something more cheap since otherwise where will all the money come from that is burned right now?
The biggest advantage systems has is also it's biggest disadvantage: the amount of functionality. Even with lot of functionality being optional this days, dlopened at runtime if present, it's still bigger then a simple shell script or.tpur own 20 lines of C-code. The later may, in some cases like running anyways only one app in full screen, more then enough. In some embedded setups you may not even need that but just run your app as pid 1 and be fine.
A lot of the monetarization strategies for LMM's depend on the need to use them via SaaS subscriptions. If companies start to realize that local AI is cheaper, provides good enough results and makes them independent then that monetarization strategy falls apart and a whole industry collapses.
That's a npm supply chain attack style but next level for the Enterprise game: hack one and get access to everything of all of them since they are all unrestricted connected and with each other.
And then they force us to install cloudstrike, antiviruses and client side monitoring because "us are the security problem".
Or use QtWebEngine which uses Chromium under the hood, provides a stable and rich API and enables sharing rather then bundling the browser runtime + is Cross-Platform + security updates are handled too.
Putting it out from "only a small group of people/companies exploit it" to the public is the way how you get it fixed. In this case it seems that was the only way that was left after Microsoft refuses cooperation. What counts are the results: This are fixed now.
I am literally saying that the role the person applied to was for a "founding engineer at a mental health startup".
This is a leading role(!) in the mental health(!!) industry. That should give some clues. They also announced that the follow-up interview as a "non traditional - a ~90 minute culture fit chat" dropping more hints.
Unfortunately he also "fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics".
I bet the exact wording was open enough to leave enough room to not "felt completely emotionally drained" afterwards.
I think the interviewer did him a favor. He is just not able to handle a leading role in the mental health industry in a way that would have been mental healthy for him.
The opposite. Are you breaking the rule to leave your private stuff home just because the other side is or are you capable of keeping out of such sources of interpersonal conflicts, take over and redirect the discussion back to a professional level?
Of course it depends for what field and role you apply. For any leading role or customer contact point the capability to stay professional is essential. If you flip burgers at McDonald's then it's your right to be grumpy.
Rejecting the question is actually how you pass. Open with "I leave everything private at home when at work hence my answer for the work position is: [here the answer but scoped and formulated to your work life and NOT to your private life]".