For what it’s worth, the null hypothesis is that they are just fakes and the commenter is at best trying to illustrate a point.
No, that's not “the null hypothesis”. It is a positive claim.
The poster is making a positive claim without evidence. Indeed the claim is unverifiable.
Reasonable priors lead fo a null hypothesis that they are at least simply mistaken.
This is without even taking into account other indicators of credibility or authority, or perverse incentives, as priors.
This is a rational use of ‘null hypothesis’, but it also matches the scientific use, which would be that the claim is spurious unless experiment shows otherwise.
In any case, we know that the poster is in fact wrong in their claim.
No, its not.
> The poster is making a positive claim without evidence.
True.
That doesn't make the alternate positive claim you have posited into “the null hypothesis”.
A null hypothesis is null. What you are stating may be your prior, but it is not the, or even a valid, null hypothesis.
> This is a rational use of ‘null hypothesis’, but it also matches the scientific use,
“Null hypothesis” is a very specific scientific term of artz it has no other meaning.
And, no, the specific counternarrative presented here does not match the scientific use of “null hypothesis”.
I mean, if you're calling someone out, at least provide some evidence yourself. Short of a reproducible outcome, you're just as questionable in conclusion as the poster.
The poster’s claim is false based on what they have said.
> you're just as questionable in conclusion as the poster.
Not correct. You don’t need evidence to disprove a claim that is logically false. The poster’s claim is logically false.
Here is a copy of the explanation I gave elsewhere:
—-
I can be certain because I have looked at the images, and they are obviously not CSAM. Since the visual derivative is generated from CSAM, any spoof must look like it could be mistaken at a glance for CSAM.
What prevents a generated image from matching both is that the attacker would need to know what the image they are trying to spoof looks like, in order to make a false positive of both. I.e. the attacker would need a copy of the original CSAM, and the spoofed file would end up looking like it could be at least plausibly mistaken for that exact image.
Isnt this making the relatively huge assumption that humans and Apple's algorithms have the exact some opinion of what something "looks like"?
