But, I also think that it will end up split into different kinds of interviews for different positions. The older I am the more I believe that there is no single "good in tech" aptitude and that such notion is nonsense. Rather, different tech jobs require very different amounts of abstract thinking, logic, patience, memory, aesthetic feel, detailed knowledge of some sub-area, ability to communicate, self control, punctuality and so on and so forth.
You can be quite crappy at assembler and heavily talented for enterprise java for example. You can be good at smaller projects and completely fundamentally fail in large codebase many people situation.
I agree also in theory, but as you said there are vast differences in speciality. Some programmers are far more product focused and have an eye for design and communication, and some only do well when they're deep in the weeds of some obscure perf optimization. The latter gets hired quicker, while the former can often do a lot of useful things for an organization.
The other losers are people who have skills and aptitude that is actually needed, but don't have the thing that interview measures. Yet other losers are people forced who have to work with those who ace interviews and get rewarded, but are not actually good in actual work.
The side note is not just that hiring don't really measure what matters for job performance. It is also that companies themselves don't really seriously care about it nor spend time thinking about it. That affects not just hiring, but also promotions and other rewards. Which in turn causes additional problems and unhealthy workplaces (excessive crunch being one of those, huge amount of socialization that is expected in some companies another, ridiculous technological decisions too and so on and so forth).