The problems of appropriate policing in so-called "high crime" neighborhoods are well understood. Many academic studies, as well as popular non-fiction like Jill Leovy's Ghettoside and Chris Hayes' Colony in a Nation, have discussed the issue. To sum up the literature in a few sentences, the problem is that minority neighborhoods are both overpoliced and underpoliced. There are a lot of useless arrests for minor crimes like jaywalking which makes the residents of these neighborhoods hostile to the police. (These arrests are driven by the debunked theory of broken window policing.) Simultaneously, there's not enough effort put into solving serious crimes like murder. In this context, the actual effect of predictive policing is that it ends up doing more of the useless over-policing, which unfortunately makes these neighborhoods even worse.

So, how does this relate to your question? The point is that predictive policing is solving the wrong problem. What's needed are not more accurate neural nets predicting crime, but techniques for addressing the underly sociological factors that cause crime.

Taking a step back and speaking broadly, Cory's point is that the focus on data and quantitative analysis is causing problems in two ways: (i) people are using quantitative methods to solve the wrong problems, and (ii) they seem to be oblivious to (and in some cases actively hostile to acknowledging) the harms being perpetrated by their methods. Both of these problems seem to be driven by a lack of understanding of well understood (but non-quantitative) social science literature.