Anyway all I'm claiming is that statistical methods are much more accurate than humans. Nothing there disputes that claim. If you want the most accurate predictions possible, you should use an algorithm.
That article implies that humans are somehow fair or unbiased. That is a completely ridiculous claim that has been proven false many times. Human judges give ugly people twice the sentences of attractive people. Judges have been shown to give significantly harsher sentences just before lunch, when they are hungry. Not to mention all the classic biases against gender/race/political affiliation/etc. Studies have shown interviews are worse than useless at assessing how good someone will be as an employee. Instead employers are biased by how much they like the candidate. We should hardly expect traditional parole interviews to be any different.
But almost no one cares about these results. Yet when an algorithm is shown to have a (not statistically significant) bias, people freak out. This, if anything, proves my point that algorithm aversion is a serious problem.