It's like those warnings in cigarettes packages saying they will kill you. I know cigarettes are bad, but the warnings also make me believe there's at least "some" control in how bad they are. Now if I buy one without the warnings, I will worry those in particular are extra-shady and likely to kill me even faster.

And here's the neat thing: If both services are provided by the same company, they can even save the costs of actually sending the physical paper to themselves!

The same way the vertical centering counts the viewport height only, not the url bar and the tab bar.

And as for enforcement, yeah there isn't an effort in trying to avoid anyone sneaking in an extra phone, it's basically grounded on good faith and the fact that if they catch your phone with you (or even if it rings in the bag), you're eliminated from the exam. That's where I think the chaos would arise. If everyone's phones alerted at the same time, the examiner wouldn't know what to do.

Cynical part of me had this theory that, at least for part of them, it's the other way around. It's not that they see AI as sentient, it's that they never have seen other human beings like that in the first place. Other people are just means for them to reach their goals, or obstacles. In that sense, AI is not really different for them. Except they're cheaper and be guaranteed to always agree with them.

That's why I believe CEOs, who are more likely to be sociopaths by natural selection, genuinely believe AI is a good replacement for people. They're not looking for individuals with personal thoughts that may contradict with theirs at some point, they're looking for yes-men as a service.