Found the study- https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:kh752sm9123/ml_training_data_csam_report-2023-12-20.pdf https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:kh752sm91

Found the study- https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:kh752sm9123/ml_training_data_csam_report-2023-12-20.pdf https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:kh752sm9123/ml_traini... The study says 825 were confirmed using one method, and 183 with another- not clear to me if those are unique or duplicates of each other. Also, "confirmed" only means "is or is likely" CSAM, and they don't provide any numbers as to how many were classified as "likely". It also isn't clear how they define "likely". EDIT: Previously I said the article was overstating the number of CSAM images found, but I since re-read it and the article may be citing the correct total from the two methods)