The HRB columnist’s position is clear: “algorithms are less biased and more accurate than the humans they are replacing”. Hence, their use lends itself to alleviating social inequality, rather than to making them worse (this point is hardly touched upon, however).

The author argues that today’s automatizing trend, when applied to decision-making processes, yields fruits that are far superior to their human equivalents, even in such fields as the mortgage lending industry, HR management, organizational design, and even in bail decisions, that just yesterday were our unchallenged feud.

As a matter of fact, the author’s argument is not one of “algorithmic absolutism or blind faith in the power of statistics”; nor does it seem awfully sensible to underestimate the higher and higher ethical significance of artificial intelligence. What appears likely, in the near future, is a much more nuanced scenario in which machines and humans will collaborate, in ever-growing symbiosis, in more and more critical decision-making processes.