If my AI takes aren't satisfying enough, they kind of should do though, it is because each month, there has been someone talking about how the "situation has changed", and then, you read a bunch of documents and it turns out it practically hasn't. My time is limited.
If you are really sure it has, in some way in which it really hasn't before, I might take a look at it but I'm done spending days reading things for now to figure out that someone is exaggerating.
There is also the problem where something which I debunked like five months ago will be carried from person to person where it might suddenly seem like a new point, but when you dig into it, it turns out it isn't.
Sometimes, there is a "report" which allegedly supports someone's point, but there won't be a link to it, so I will have to figure out what that is about and track it down to discover that it is again cherry picked or exaggerated.
One thing which might crop up are numbers like "hundreds" or "thousands" of images which sound big until you realize the scale of the Internet with billions of people and that a video has 3600 frames per minute (with 60FPS).
Without further context, it's hard to argue that these numbers are meaningful but someone is still expected to feel that the sky is falling.
A single batch (and it is not as if spam is unusual) can contain a lot.