So what if some numbers are effectively illegal? the probability that the number that happened to correspond to some CSAM image collides with numbers worth sharing and thus propagating (like pi, euler's constant, ...; no substrings don't count!) is effectively nihil: the probability that a 100 bit number collides with a specific useful number in literature, mathematics, ... is 1 vs : 2 ^ 100 (or roughly a 1 followed by 30 zeros); in others words astronomically small. Even multiplying all human communications (text messages, books, articles, ...) with the average number of numbers appearing per communication (resulting in the total number of communicated numbers) multiplied by the 1 on the left hand side of the ratio doesn't move the needle, its still astronomically small.
In other words when someone sends you a number that happens to render to CSAM material, its not a coincidence, and any sender pretending it to be coincidence is molesting statistics as well...
Furthermore your "precedent" of illegal numbers is a poor precedent: unlike the tiny fraction of numbers criminalized, all the other numbers remain perfectly legal in stark contrast to big tech proposing to ban all open weight models (!)
Casually dropping in bijections between numbers and images and CSAM images hence CSAM numbers is pure whataboutism that risks ignoring the grave consequences of a ban on open-weight models.
Physics is models. Shall we blanket ban open-source physics?
Hey let's just be silly and casually behave laissez faire when big tech proposes banning open-weight models, because someone has already banned your favorite numbers??!
BTW anyone that follows up with: "hey you only multiplied the appearances of random numbers appearing in communications for a single specific CSAM image, what about the birthday paradox, multiple images are CSAM" don't worry I got you more than covered: 100 bits is not enough to encode a CSAM image worth writing to the police about. An average image easily consumes thousands of bits (or many times more), making the exact number of CSAM images/numbers irrelevant.
In other words when someone sends you a number that happens to render to CSAM material, its not a coincidence, and any sender pretending it to be coincidence is molesting statistics as well...
Furthermore your "precedent" of illegal numbers is a poor precedent: unlike the tiny fraction of numbers criminalized, all the other numbers remain perfectly legal in stark contrast to big tech proposing to ban all open weight models (!)
Casually dropping in bijections between numbers and images and CSAM images hence CSAM numbers is pure whataboutism that risks ignoring the grave consequences of a ban on open-weight models.
Physics is models. Shall we blanket ban open-source physics?
Hey let's just be silly and casually behave laissez faire when big tech proposes banning open-weight models, because someone has already banned your favorite numbers??!
BTW anyone that follows up with: "hey you only multiplied the appearances of random numbers appearing in communications for a single specific CSAM image, what about the birthday paradox, multiple images are CSAM" don't worry I got you more than covered: 100 bits is not enough to encode a CSAM image worth writing to the police about. An average image easily consumes thousands of bits (or many times more), making the exact number of CSAM images/numbers irrelevant.