> Your argument works just as well if for any x, NeuralHash(x)=1. That's good, because they weren't arguing that NeuralHash is infallible, but that its fallibi

> Your argument works just as well if for any x, NeuralHash(x)=1. That's good, because they weren't arguing that NeuralHash is infallible, but that its fallibility does not lead to the consequences outlined by the GP. > The fact is that a 'first line of defense' that is trivial to fool is useless. Useless to you, but not to apple. It reduces the set of pictures to process from "everything" to "those identified by the algorithm as designed, plus artificial false positives". It's impossible for the second set to be larger than the first, so it's by definition not useless. This is why it's strange how people are focusing so hard on the weaknesses of NeuralHash when what we should care about is how well the system as a whole works.