Honest question: why does the AI regularly make the same geographic mistake over and over and over again? I’ll give an example, Oulactis mucosa, a common intertidal anemone endemic to Australia that is constantly suggested for anything vaguely similar found anywhere else in the world. There are 580 observations of this species, all from a tight geographic area. How hard is it to code the AI to accept that as a pretty good indication of where this species occurs.
And, yes, I appreciate that on RARE occasion a species can be found extralimitally, but that shouldn’t be factored into the algorithm unless there is an exceptionally high confidence interval for the ID.
To wit, there is no excuse for these sorts of mistakes being so commonplace. It dilutes the utility of the AI and fills this site with erroneous data. Biogeography should be at the forefront of how the AI is computing this, not on the backburner, as so often seems to be the case.