I don't think anyone is confusing algorithmic bias for evidence that humans are better. It's the other way around -- the argument has always been that algorithm

I don't think anyone is confusing algorithmic bias for evidence that humans are better. It's the other way around -- the argument has always been that algorithms are biased because humans are biased. Having a systemic bias that masquerades as neutral seems worse than having people in the loop. When submitting my resume and interviewing for jobs, I'd certainly prefer to be subject to: 1) multiple people with different biases, 2) humans that can change their mind and/or recognize their biases, 3) humans that can explain their rationale, and 4) humans that can grasp and weight eccentric and non-conforming experience. I'm not interested in being ranked in a standardized way, because I'm not interested in being a pure cog in wheel. I also think people who want standardized resumes and automated processing are vastly underestimating the SEO effect it will have on hiring. If resumes are automated, then many people more aggressive than you will game the system to the Nth degree. The same thing that happens to Google and the internet will happen to jobs: the loudest and spammiest will win, and the good content will go mostly unnoticed and unrewarded.