The article is wrong on multiple angles. First it explains why the algorithm reached its conclusions... the data. So the algorithm wasn't at fault, but the data

The article is wrong on multiple angles. First it explains why the algorithm reached its conclusions... the data. So the algorithm wasn't at fault, but the data was, which was supplied by a human. Second, algorithms are inanimate and cannot hold beliefs like racial superiority. It could be used by someone who does, in which case you would want to prove it with other means than just the algorithm. Either way what this really proves is that the new definition of "racist" is whether or not you are the first to bring it up.