I'm saying that in a company like Google in the mindstate of Silicon Valley, they've invested millions into the system and they start from an ideal image that t

I'm saying that in a company like Google in the mindstate of Silicon Valley, they've invested millions into the system and they start from an ideal image that the system is unbiased and "fair" and good. Even if it goes to the highest levels in the company, they aren't playing the game "prove why the system was wrong", they are are playing the game "prove why the millions of dollars we poured into this system were right". Especially if they are at fairly high levels of the company removed from the day to day maintenance of the system, they have more personally invested in assuming the system works right, in believing the system to be an unbiased and "fair" black box (because their personal reputations get tied to the company's reputations get tied to the system's reputation). I think the "something else" is just general mistrust in broken "guilty until proven innocent" systems. I believe people have noticed, but the system still wins because the system is usually "right". It's the "benign" AI bureaucracy "utopia" Google (and a lot of Silicon Valley) keeps saying they all want and keeps trying to build doing exactly what it was built to do, absolve humans of human decisions and blame it on the "fair" black box. But maybe I'm just a huge cynic about human nature.