From OP:

  > Now with all those aptitude training [...] that require you to turn on your webcam

They are referring to an automated personality or skills test to screen candidates. The webcam is to make sure the applicant is the one actually doing the test. These things are dehumanizing and snake-oil but there’s’s no question that applicant misrepresentation happens, including situations where the person interviewing is a ringer being paid by an agency or the applicant.

I guess I don’t understand how cheating on these things benefits the candidate. Like, you lie about any of that and get put in front of a panel, how’s that going to go?

Generally the people trying to fake their identity or skills in interviews are doing so with remote jobs, with the goal of bumbling along indefinitely once they no longer need to be on camera.

The problem here is that companies have now gone from identity verification to this 'aptitude test' ML bullshit that's just another cover for increasingly weird arbitrary discrimination against applicants.

See this HN thread for all kinds of experiences with hiring fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996457

It doesn't benefit genuine candidates to blatantly lie. They'll get caught later in the process. But you're assuming identity thieves are acting rationally or fear getting caught. They don't, and they're playing a numbers game. If you get past an interviewer and get fired after two weeks, your salary at a US tech company can be $5k, which is the average annual salary in many developing countries.

I would assume this is an attempt to catch people who hire impersonators for the interview early.

Precisely.

I don't know about other folks here, but in the past decade, we've encountered recruiters who present one candidate when doing a telephone interview and then a different person shows up for the in-person interview.