Being unable to replicate studies showing that something is real doesn't mean that thing is not real, it just means we don't know.
This is of course just my experience, but I know that I've had unconscious biases that I've later managed to surface and suss out (and hopefully eradicate). So maybe unconscious bias isn't as common as these studies you don't like seem to suggest, but it certainly is real, as I've experienced it myself.
https://fantasticanachronism.com/2020/09/11/whats-wrong-with...
"The original IAT paper is worth revisiting. You only really need to read page 1475. The construct validity evidence is laughable. The whole thing is based on N=26 and they find no significant correlation between the IAT and explicit measures of racism. But that's OK, Greenwald says, because the IAT is meant to find secret racists ("reveal explicitly disavowed prejudice")! The question of why a null correlation between implicit and explicit racial attitudes is to be expected is left as an exercise to the reader. The correlation between two racial IATs (male and female names) is .46 and they conveniently forget to mention the comically low test-retest reliability. That's all you need for 13k citations and a consulting industry selling implicit bias to the government for millions of dollars."
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-20587-001
"IATs were poor predictors of every criterion category other than brain activity, and the IATs performed no better than simple explicit measures"
But that's the problem, it's not possible because even if you try, unconscious bias means we all fail to ignore race (and gender, and height, and all these other things about people). The only thing you can do is accept that race bias exists and learn about how to unbias as much as possible. A lot of corporate trainings involve unbiasing exercises that are really helpful if you go into it with the right mindset (discovering your biases and then working to be vigilant about them).