For what it's worth, Apple claimed to find a _lower_ incidence of false-positives when it used pornographic images in its test[1] (which makes sense; images con

For what it's worth, Apple claimed to find a _lower_ incidence of false-positives when it used pornographic images in its test[1] (which makes sense; images containing humans is probably more aligned with what the model was trained on than nematodes) This is an important note. Is it the case that this algorithm is trained for humans or not? the 1/trillion false-positive rate might imply it is trained with a broader set. Thank you for those helpful tidbits.