[saycheese]

>> “QUESTION: Look at the two photos below and see if you can figure out which person is real.”

>> “ANSWER: Sorry! This was a trick question. Both images were generated by computers.”

Not really a trick question when even if you know they’re both fake that the only way to be right (confirm you are right) is to be wrong.

[schaefer]

I’d also like to comment on the “ha, fooled you!” tactic used in this article, where the authors asks the reader to choose the photo of the real person from two given photos and then reveals that, gasp, both are computer generated.

Whenever I run into this often-used tactic in papers and talks, I can’t help but feel – no, the author didn’t just convince me of their point. Instead they convinced me that they don’t value being trustworthy. Often I will just stop reading the article right then. Or if I do continue I will become unforgivingly skeptical of any claim that doesn’t provide a citation that is independently verifiable.

Use of the tactic feels particularly peculiar in an article which itself grasps towards the implications of a future in which photos and videos are no longer trustworthy, a future in which personal reputation will be more meaningful.

[pluma]

Yeah, I thought both looked a tiny bit off. I think it has to do with the reflection in the eyes which is a tiny bit inconsistent, among other things.

[disantlor]

maybe so (they fooled me) but you were already prepped to scrutinize them. To the point others have made, we’ll soon need to be constantly prepared to assume fakery.

the technology of fakery is rising the meet the “everything is fake news” moment

[logfromblammo]

I immediately picked the right image, because I saw whisker stubble on the left, and I already knew that image-generation AIs seem to have a thing for painting whisker stubble all over anything even remotely resembling a male face.

Surprise! Guess I should have considered the possibility of a trick question.