You don't have to report the false positive, the link to the place to do it is just included in explanatory edit summary so that you can conveniently use it if you want to. (The reported ones eventually are reviewed by multiple other editors, and then, true or false, are included in the training data to improve the accuracy). The retrained bot is measured against the human-verified vandalism and non-vandalism data so that the bot is expected to generate 1% false positives of all the reverts it does.
By the way, the bot will only revert an edit once, so you can undo that revert and the edit goes back in (at least until a human editor decides it should be reverted). The bot has available to it not just the change text and its placement in the existing article text, but also meta information such as the editor's account information (and I believe logged-out edits happen to get dinged more often simply because those are the major source of vandalizing edits).
It doesn't help that your first sentence makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist riding his hobby horse. I read on despite that, but others may not.
> we are doing a "root cause analysis to determine how this logic flaw occurred"
That's going to find a cause: a programmer made an error. That's not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is allowing such an error to be released (especially obvious because of its widespread impact).
The problem with using gmail variants is it's easy to transform [email protected] into [email protected], and spammers or spammer suppliers can do that automatically.
In 2000, an Alaska MD-80 went down, killing all 88 onboard. The NTSB found that it was apparently due to failing to adequately lubricate the tail jackscrew, as required by manufacturer documentation, not just once, but in at least two successive scheduled maintenance periods. Also, Alaska had been increasing, with FAA approval, the period between scheduled maintenence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261
> Each day, a random location is generated, along with five photos within five miles.
So the pictures are all within 53,000 feet of each other (10 miles). Note that the random location is just some point, and probably not in a town or city.
That is exactly where LLMs are useful. (People thinking of them as "AI", meaning AGI is just so wrong. Writing legal briefs??) Using them to ex post facto adjust transcripts in order to make them available and searchable is great.
True, but luckily they don't intrude on the community or impact the Wikipedia site too much beyond their ever more frequent "We desperately need donations" campaigns. As the Foundation has gotten richer, its desire for more milk from its Wikipedia cash cow has only grown.
Selection is what the article describes (solubility and structure). They don't claim that they reproduced; they're just talking about amino acids that come about by non-reproductive chemical processes.
“I advise strongly against trying to pursue ketamine, commercially or clinically, because of safety concerns and the risk of losing our opportunity to study it rigorously,” said Kolevzon [the clinical director]
Research to gain quality evidence is good, but sometimes other considerations outweigh that. Visible improvement in the sufferers of a rare disease may be such a case.
By the way, the bot will only revert an edit once, so you can undo that revert and the edit goes back in (at least until a human editor decides it should be reverted). The bot has available to it not just the change text and its placement in the existing article text, but also meta information such as the editor's account information (and I believe logged-out edits happen to get dinged more often simply because those are the major source of vandalizing edits).