If you want to make normative arguments, go ahead. My first principles tend to be very individualistic (I view individual humans as being the sole carriers of moral consideration), so our normative claims will likely disagree.

Also, describing the results of any code/program written by a human as a "completely inhuman intelligence" is a tenuous claim at best.

Clearly you've never written such systems. If they behaved remotely the way humans think my job (building them and making them usable by humans) would be vastly easier.

The core question - do you believe the problem will be fixed by better machine learning algorithms? Going back to the current example, do you believe that a Bayes-optimal machine learning algorithm for predicting criminal behavior will be "unbiased" (in the sense of social justice, not in the sense of statistics)?

Or, more concretely, do you believe that the only problem that mtgx and smtddr are complaining about is that our ML algorithms aren't good enough and that maybe we need deep learning instead of random forests?