I got 10 out of 10 correct without looking at the features around the face. It's easy to spot the fake one by wrinkles going the wrong way, or obvious artifacts like incomplete earrings. It's close to being impossible for me to tell, though, if they fixed those issues.

My method was more intuitive than that. There's more detail on the real faces, the fake ones look slightly brushed over. If it wasn't an A/B test, I'd fall for the fakes every time, however.

Oddly I succeeded using the exact opposite strategy.

And some of the real photos have additional accessoirs like a hat, sunglasses, ear rings but none of the fakes seem to have them. I clicked through 30 picture pairs and had 28 of them right without thinking more than 1 second for each.

I looked at 3 and saw hats, spectacles, and earrings.

One of the fakes had specs; one had earrings and a hat and a partial of another person next to them (that one fooled me as the real photo was crazy, a mortar board with a coloured and unfeasibly large tassel).

It’s impressive how well the algorithm does with spectacles.

Came here to say the same thing, but the fact remains that the fake faces are indeed quite convincing!

Perhaps they could improve the deception by simply cropping out 100% of the background.

My strategy was to pay attention to the lighting conditions. the fake ones fall within a recognisable averaged out distribution, and a photo with lighting that is an "outlier" is easy to spot as real. E.G. Dark blue mood lighting. Overexposed features. Glare in the eyes.

a lot of the fake ones also have a recognisable skin gloss.

You can also often find unnatural hairs/wrinkles/pigmentation around the forehead/neck if you look closely.

Yes, using these clues I was able to go about 15 or 20 times before getting one wrong... and the one I got wrong was one I was very unsure about.

Background, teeth, hair, edges are giveaways. I easily got 10/10 right.

They could easily solve this by blurring the background.