I've put a lot of thought into hiring in this era, and what I've personally found works the best is:

Let them use their preferred setup and AI to the full extent they want, and evaluate their output and their methodology. Ask questions of "why did you choose X over Y", especially if you're skeptical, and see their reasoning. Ask what they'd do next with more time.

It's clear when a candidate can build an entire working product, end-to-end, in <1 day vs. someone who struggles to create a bug-free MVP and would take a week for the product.

In addition to the technical interview, hiring them on a trial basis is the absolute best if possible.

Taste and technical understanding of goals and implementation to reach those goals is the biggest differentiator now. AI can handle all the code and syntax, but it's not great at architecture yet - it defaults to what's mid if not otherwise instructed.

Agreed on the bimodal, but I don't think this is junior vs. senior - I think it's just competence being rooted out.

The majority of engineers, in my hiring experience, failed very simple tests pre-AI. In a world where anyone can code, they're no better than previously non-technical people. The CS degree is no longer protection.

The gap between average and the best engineers now, though, is even higher. The best engineers can visualize the whole architecture in their head, and describe exactly what they want to an AI - their productivity is multiplied, and they rarely get slowed down.

While this could be done by junior or senior, I think junior usually has the slight advantage in being more AI-native and knowing how to effectively prompt and work with AI, though not always.

Not the OP but curious why you think so?

If this gives an extra 1% per se, I imagine that is more worth it to a company fresh off a large fundraise with a ton of cash in the bank.

Startups otherwise are lean and won't hold enough cash to get a meaningful return from the 1%.

I'd challenge that if you think they're fearmongering but don't see what they can gain from it (I agree it shows no obvious benefit for them), there's a pretty high probability they're not fearmongering.

A movement is better terminology than an organization, fair.

But okay - I'm confused what sources you would accept? There are "Antifa" groups on social media that literally advocate for doing this, I've seen it first-hand.