Aaron Lercher, a commenter in O'Neill's site, nails it: "The baffling sentence makes more sense if humans are split into two (possibly overlapping) groups: (1) those who delegate their decision-making to an algorithm, and (2) those who protest that some decisions are being made in unaccountable or dumb ways. The sentence is baffling because it is written as an accusation against humans in general (italicized for emphasis)."
This happens throughout the entire Slate piece: he makes a specific claim that might be appropriate to some arbitrary subset of groups, then points the blaming finger at the people who are trying to understand the phenomenon! Another example from Elkus:
"Perhaps the humans who refuse to act for what they believe in while raising fear about computers are the real ones responsible for the decline of our agency, choice, and control—not the machines."
Pay attention to the framing: which humans are refusing to "act for what they believe in" here, and who's "raising fear" about computers? I would hope that Mr. Elkus thinks that studying the problem is different than raising fear. An, in addition, these are not the same people who are in control of the machines, or the algorithms being run in those machines. You can't just throw all these people in the same group or string random words together in a sentence. Well, you can, but you can't expect that to make sense.