This was a very poorly structured argument. It basically makes the case that police algorithms are bad because they allow for some of the biases that already exist in our current system to perpetuate, ignoring the fact that the alternative is the system that created those biases in the first place. If police have historically overpoliced some communities, then we have every reason to believe they will continue to do so if we continue with the system of 'police departments make human decisions about how to allocate their resources.' If we switch to the algorithmic model, then continuing that practice is certainly one possible outcome, but it's also entirely possible that we build into that algorithm some coefficient of historical crime that we could let the community have a say in the value of.

Lets say that the 'risk factor' of any given community is based on some collection of metrics like the number of crimes committed in the last 10 years, the number of crimes committed in the last 6 months, the number of 911 calls originating in that community in the last year, and the number of non-criminal emergency calls (fire, ambulance, etc) in that community in the last year:
RF = a1*Crime10y + a2*Crime6m + a3*911Crime + a4*911NonCrime
Now, imagine that through some democratic process the members of that community get to assign values for a1->a4, such that they can place a very low (even zero) value on a1 to completely assuage the concerns of the author in that regard. You simply CANNOT do this if subjective humans are the ones making the decisions.

I simply do not see a non-luddite argument here for why algorithms in policing are a bad thing, as opposed to a neutral thing that have as much propensity to improve policing as they do to make it worse.