You must log in or register to comment.

throwaway12131214121 t1_j2nj0yl wrote

That kind of makes sense. Artificial faces are designed to look as much like real faces as possible. Real faces can diverge from what is typically seen as a ‘real’ face


tornpentacle t1_j2ntuz9 wrote

So do the artificial faces.

You can see the GAN faces they used at (unfortunately, you have to refresh each time to see a new one).

The real ones were taken from this dataset.


throwaway12131214121 t1_j2nwsya wrote

Yeah but when a GAN face diverges it is seen as a failure and the system learns from that. When a real face diverges it isn’t a failure it’s just a face


tornpentacle t1_j2o62la wrote

What's your source for how the researchers trained these models, specifically?


throwaway12131214121 t1_j2o866u wrote

It’s just part of my general knowledge of how GANs work I don’t have a source, I could be wrong


snek_charm t1_j2odyi8 wrote

In the article, they mention that they specifically selected faces that look as real as possible, without any visual errors, because they were interested in images that would likely be used in advertising and propaganda. It doesn't really test whether any randomly generated face would work, but whether one selected by a person for use in public messaging would. Seems like there's still plenty of room for error in the randomly generated faces though.


throwaway12131214121 t1_j2olrrx wrote

Well if that’s the case it’s kind of obvious. Faces selected to be presented as real by a human are more likely to be perceived by a human as real


Theletterkay t1_j2qakap wrote

It showed a picture of a little boy and all I could think was "where are the bruises, this is clearly fake". Grew up with 3 brothers and now 2 little boys of my own, they are never without bruises or marks of some kind. Boys are hellions.


JukesMasonLynch t1_j2olahn wrote

Love that site. Discovered it a year or two back. It can give you some real Cronenberg's sometimes


linkedlist t1_j2n8hr5 wrote

We stared into the uncanny valley and realised it was us who were uncanny.


StephenTexasWest t1_j2n8eom wrote

Because familiarity is what we perceive as attractive.

And AI is an amalgam of what is familiar.


phdemented t1_j2ncnfa wrote

Was gonna say the same thing a different way... The ai was trained to look for certain features, and then artificial faces are generated to have those things, so it makes sense in a way.


tornpentacle t1_j2nv994 wrote

I would like to add a counterpoint: namely, that AI is not an amalgamation of what is familiar, because familiarity to humans is a result of a whole host of cognitive biases. An AI probably takes more factors/features into account than a human would if he were given the same task (to create a realistic face). But I don't know exactly how the model was trained, so it's all conjecture.


ModernistGames t1_j2nu4ka wrote

We also perceive attractive people as more trustworthy and comforting, even as babies.


jfuite t1_j2oua6q wrote

Back in the early 1990s, if I remember correctly, there was a study published, which found that political cartoon drawings of politicians, say Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, & Gorbachev, were more readily identifiable by the public than actual photos. The exaggerated, trivial line drawings communicated more decisive information to prompt correct responses from average viewers.


hman1025 t1_j2nwi65 wrote

This is the first AI related headline to scare me


28nov2022 t1_j2otz4k wrote

Here comes the AI fear mongering again


hman1025 t1_j2ou3fk wrote

I don’t let myself buy into any of that kinda stuff, this is the first time where I’ve been legitimately spooked a bit though


Creative_soja t1_j2oe8mz wrote

This could distortion our perception of real attractiveness and would worsen the beauty standards and expectations in, for example, online dating, which is already terrible for many. I think individual mental health crisis, especially among teens and youngs, will further deteriorate.


Lynith t1_j2pcdan wrote

Yes. There's a LOT of implications this can have.

Though it is worth noting that they also studied people with diagnoses that can affect the results but that makes far less catchy of a headline.


uniquelyavailable t1_j2ndc4w wrote

I just assume everything is fake


tornpentacle t1_j2nsry4 wrote

If solipsism is philosophically naïve, then I'd contend that this take is, too.


Leviacule t1_j2q6cld wrote

Solipsism is a pretty solid argument. It just doesn't mesh well with free will. We're all just dissolving chemicals perceiving the world through a single uniform experience. We just can't communicate we're the same because no matter what medium we try to communicate the message with, we affect part of the chemical now. No matter what, the message deviates into the environment and either vibrates into a disagreement or vibrates into a perfect hive mind. (Disagree with me, I dare you)


AutoModerator t1_j2n61cx wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Lynith t1_j2pbmar wrote

I have Prosopagnosia. Try me, scientists!


maruffin t1_j2q4mxc wrote

Reminds me of the short story, “The Real Thing”.


chrisinsocalif t1_j2r3ahb wrote

I see so many filters on social media, this makes a lot of sense.


[deleted] OP t1_j2rt18b wrote

the tagline should be 'more real than real'


ShakeWeightMyDick t1_j33b232 wrote

So, “AI is better able to recognize things made by AI?” Kinda a no-brainer.

It’s sort of a short cut.


[deleted] OP t1_j2o533z wrote

I take it the uncanny valley hypothesis is dead now, and nobody noticed.