> Let's define the interview as useful if the passing candidate can do the job.
The technical term for this is "construct validity", that the test results are related to something you want to learn about.
> The interview is not able to predict the poor working performance of ChatGPT and it's therefore useless.
This doesn't follow; the interview doesn't need to be able to exclude ChatGPT because ChatGPT doesn't interview for jobs. It's perfectly possible that the same test shows high validity on humans and low validity on ChatGPT.
The technical term for this is "construct validity", that the test results are related to something you want to learn about.
> The interview is not able to predict the poor working performance of ChatGPT and it's therefore useless.
This doesn't follow; the interview doesn't need to be able to exclude ChatGPT because ChatGPT doesn't interview for jobs. It's perfectly possible that the same test shows high validity on humans and low validity on ChatGPT.