I find it utterly frustrating that a scientific seeming article would end with this conclusion: "A single algorithm can trigger false-positive or false-negativ

I find it utterly frustrating that a scientific seeming article would end with this conclusion: "A single algorithm can trigger false-positive or false-negative results... if something is really real, then it should pass everything." How you going to be so thorough about detecting a crappy photoshop job and then trip over your own words in the conclusion?