You&#x27;re essentially making an argument from the efficient market hypothesis:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Efficient-market_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Efficient-market_hypothesis</a><p>In other words, the algorithm won&#x27;t be biased because there is a buck to be made by removing the bias.<p>But the efficient market hypothesis is weird. It&#x27;s kind of like Schrodinger&#x27;s Cat. If you can find some specific instance where it&#x27;s wrong and publish it then the market corrects itself, so if you observe a bias then it ceases to exist. So now on one hand, we know that biases can exist because people have discovered them in the past; it&#x27;s just that <i>those</i> biases have already been published and are being taken into account. We can speculate that more exist but we don&#x27;t know what they are. On the other hand, maybe now we&#x27;ve finally found them all (or the remaining ones are negligible) and the efficient market hypothesis becomes true.<p>But notice that the thing to do if you believe the efficient market hypothesis is wrong in a particular case is clear. <i>Prove it</i>, because you&#x27;ll be able to make a lot of money by making the world more just.<p>Which is why we need transparency. Because the market participants can&#x27;t find the bias if they don&#x27;t have the information, and then the efficient market hypothesis will certainly be false.