I think that falls under OC's argument and it seems eventually solvable. Still, what you are pointing is a human bias. Humans have been taking similar unfair decisions without possibility for recourse or review since forever, so it would be interesting to have a review mechanism in general.
Not solvable by purely technical means and the idea that the AI or algorithms will just keep getting better, which is what the OP seemed to be saying.
> Still, what you are pointing is a human bias. Humans have been taking similar unfair decisions without possibility for recourse or review since forever, so it would be interesting to have a review mechanism in general.
Sure. Having systems be human-driven doesn't inherently make them better. But over time the recognition of human fallibility has led legislators to enforce the creation of systems of review and recourse in many cases.