Talking requires that the interviewer be competent and care. Which seems like a low bar, but it easily degrades. When an engineer is burned out, or is interviewing for a project they have less stake in, or has business requirements forcing them to hire someone fast, the bar lowers. Those engineers now are the gatekeepers, and they let in even weaker engineers.

Even worse, any utility from this is predicated on the founder making good hiring decisions. If they don't understand how to hire a competent engineer and make them care about the company, then it's dead from the start. And a lot of founders or execs in general are awful at this.

Companies that maintain an excellent work culture such that engineers deeply care about the team and have stake in any project they conduct interviews for will do well with this model. I hope we see it used by them.

why not? to expensive? candidates don't have the time? i'd love to do that because it also gives me insights into the company. how they work, etc...

I can tell you how to recruit people

why is interviewing broken then?

You TALK to people about software development

didn't we try that and find out that the sweet-talkers master this and are able to fool everyone? or didn't we find that this leaves out good people who don't do well when questioned like that?

btw: my personal preference for a tech interview is 1 hour of pair programming. (not just live coding)