A lot of interviewers have complete leverage, so they don't get any sort of feedback or real check on their ability or processes. It's only when a candidate isn't desperate for the position, is competent, recognizes red flags, and gives them the feedback that they'd ever be aware of. You don't have to be upset to realize there's a mismatch and withdraw your candidacy.

Candidates often have to call out nonsense otherwise it may never be called out. Processes need feedback to adjust and adapt, otherwise they'll typically continue with momentum alone.

With that said you can give feedback in a polite and professional way, you don't have to be arrogant about it. "Based on the questions, it appears you're searching for these specific abilities which are often attributed to a junior role, so I believe I may be a mismatch for this specific role. I'm going to politely withdraw my continued involvement in this process. I appreciate your time and interest and hope you will contact me if a more senior role is available." Or something to that effect. You don't have to be arrogant to give feedback.

If you were like "what, this is ridiculous, what am I am an intern? Good luck filling this trash position!" And then walk out then sure, that person clearly had some anger management issues.

I once interviewed for a director role and the first round went something likes this:

Interviewer: How would you reverse a string? Me: boggle Any language I want to use? Interviewer: Yes. Me: Okay, Ruby. "somestring".reverse! Interviewer: boggle Me: I don't think we're aligned on what this role is. says thank you and leaves

Interviewers need to understand what they are interviewing for.

I mean, it all comes down to how that situation is handled.

If OP was a dick about it, then yeah, it serves to filter out an arrogant assbag.

But if OP simply explained that the interview led them to believe the position was a more junior/entry level than they were expecting, that seems fine. Further, to even explain that the interview process seems to just be a checkbox process seems fine; if you work in a critical thinking/creative role, checkbox culture is an absolute brain drain.

Getting that out in the open, in honest and respectful terms, is a fine thing to do. Why wouldn't it be?

Further, any hiring institution that feels the need to build in 'tricks' to filter people out of the interview process is toxic. Even if the people they're filtering are arrogant assbags.

If a prospective employer has a hiring process that is wasteful and pointlessly bureaucratic and tests people for things entirely irrelevant to a role, that tells me they're likely to be an awful place to work and/or don't understand what they're hiring for (which is likely to make them an awful place to work too).

If you I consider that arrogance, then so be it. I consider it not taking jobs that'd make me miserable, because I don't need to.

A prospective employer doesn't have a right to have me bend over for whatever process they'd like.