Sorry I cannot post a longer response but I’d suggest you look up how this type of forensic software is developed and used. There are a few good documentaries on it if you look, one I remember watching was on googles team for this stuff.

The images are not exactly shared in that very few people have access to them, and they treat it very much like classified information so that only select people can see them.

These models would be developed using normal images and then trained in closed systems with the real images where the accuracy is used and not the images. No need to scar the developers who just want to work.

Nothing about the reporting of people will change, the only difference is this will allow the FBI to have a list of suspected CP and a list of normal images from a computer allowing them to spend a fraction of the time looking at this stuff to document it. This is very important when you have people who have literally terrabytes of the stuff and probably even more normal images. In general we like to minimize the time spent looking at such stuff because it is so scarring.

As for showing the images in court, in the US hashes are acceptable evidence, again we don’t like to scar people by showing them this stuff. Additionally after you’ve been shown the 100th picture of a baby being abused and the FBI is telling you they have 1000000 more, you’ll just take their word for it.

Anyways, hope you have a good one

How is this proliferating csam? Also, how do you expect them to find csam without having known images? It gives a really nice way to check based on hashes without having someone look at every picture on someone’s harddrive. With this AI it should greatly help determining new or unknown images while minimizing the number of actual people that have to see that stuff, and who get scarred from looking at such images. The only reason to be against this is if you are looking at CP and want it to be harder to find, or if you don’t understand how this technology is being used.