3 ms·

I think your point is that people will recognize these faces as not being real, or maybe at least feel like they are "off" in some way, but can't put their fing

by dpcan 7y ago

I think your point is that people will recognize these faces as not being real, or maybe at least feel like they are "off" in some way, but can't put their finger on it... That being said, if you scroll through thousands of these, what you are saying does happen often, but even more often, the faces look completely real and I would have no problem believing they were anything but. Maybe I missed your point though....

cstrahan 7y ago
> [...] the faces look completely real and I would have no problem believing they were anything but. I suppose that depends on who the viewer is. For example, everyone at work was blown away with how hard it was to pick the real face here: http://www.whichfaceisreal.com/index.php http://www.whichfaceisreal.com/index.php However, I went through about 50 in under a minute and got every one correct. Programmers spend their time thinking in abstractions and models, rather than appreciating things as they are, as an artist must (see Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain -- https://www.drawright.com/theory https://www.drawright.com/theory). I wouldn't be surprised if more artsy types have a much easier time recognizing these fake photos, despite all the component pieces roughly being where they should be.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  Funny how 95% of the time the most obvious "wrong" thing is unrealistic teeth, teeth have just as much variety as hair and skin but the fake ones all have this mannequin style bridgework (spoken as the son of a dentist)
  - ravar 7y ago
    For me I figured out how to get 100% just looking at the backgrounds, the fake images have monochrome backgrounds or subtle artifacts.
mactrey 7y ago
If you scrolled through thousands of actual stock photos I'm sure you'd find plenty that seem "off" in some way. Those just cost a lot more.
mirekrusin 7y ago
It used to be easy by comparing reflection on eyes - one was completely different than the other. Or teeth line. I can see they've improved it a lot. I can't tell the difference now.
- vintermann 7y ago
  Just about all of these images have a characteristic "swirl" somewhere. Weird ears and eartings, impossible hair textures, confused "hats" and nightmarish hands/other faces in the image are also clear tells, but that little swirl is usually there even in otherwise "perfect" images. I wonder what causes it.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    It's hard to learn high frequency gradients. It's easy to learn a single edge, but not a large pile of overlapping gradients like the ends of hair. I don't know why it's so common to have an arbitrary nonsense "sticker" on a face though, I wonder if it's because input photos were trunacted at edges and the learner tried to model the edge as a facial feature instead of pruning it's knowledge to a safe interior of the photo.
- hn23 7y ago
  The Matrix of course!

by dpcan 7y ago

cstrahan 7y ago

> [...] the faces look completely real and I would have no problem believing they were anything but. I suppose that depends on who the viewer is. For example, everyone at work was blown away with how hard it was to pick the real face here: http://www.whichfaceisreal.com/index.php http://www.whichfaceisreal.com/index.php However, I went through about 50 in under a minute and got every one correct. Programmers spend their time thinking in abstractions and models, rather than appreciating things as they are, as an artist must (see Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain -- https://www.drawright.com/theory https://www.drawright.com/theory). I wouldn't be surprised if more artsy types have a much easier time recognizing these fake photos, despite all the component pieces roughly being where they should be.

kthejoker2 7y ago
Funny how 95% of the time the most obvious "wrong" thing is unrealistic teeth, teeth have just as much variety as hair and skin but the fake ones all have this mannequin style bridgework (spoken as the son of a dentist)
- ravar 7y ago
  For me I figured out how to get 100% just looking at the backgrounds, the fake images have monochrome backgrounds or subtle artifacts.

mactrey 7y ago

If you scrolled through thousands of actual stock photos I'm sure you'd find plenty that seem "off" in some way. Those just cost a lot more.

mirekrusin 7y ago

It used to be easy by comparing reflection on eyes - one was completely different than the other. Or teeth line. I can see they've improved it a lot. I can't tell the difference now.

vintermann 7y ago
Just about all of these images have a characteristic "swirl" somewhere. Weird ears and eartings, impossible hair textures, confused "hats" and nightmarish hands/other faces in the image are also clear tells, but that little swirl is usually there even in otherwise "perfect" images. I wonder what causes it.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It's hard to learn high frequency gradients. It's easy to learn a single edge, but not a large pile of overlapping gradients like the ends of hair. I don't know why it's so common to have an arbitrary nonsense "sticker" on a face though, I wonder if it's because input photos were trunacted at edges and the learner tried to model the edge as a facial feature instead of pruning it's knowledge to a safe interior of the photo.
hn23 7y ago
The Matrix of course!