Previous discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22264164

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19144280

The generator seems to have improved since then.

It's pretty impressive stuff to be sure, but the fakeness actually becomes very obvious once you understand what to look for. Something about the contour of the nose, the shape of the hair line, the way the teeth are aligned, etc.

In some dystopian future I imagine this will be part of our education to distinguish genuine content from fake news.

IMO, the fakeness is only obvious because your brain is already aware of the fact that they are fake. If you put any of those picture in another context like a Twitter/Facebook profile, almost everyone would be convinced that the person is real.

Someone needs to make a Hot or Not style website to see how good humans are at detecting generated faces compared to real faces.

Can you get into more detail on those "very obvious" markers? I kept looking but I can't find them at all.

Take this example that the site just gave me: https://imgur.com/a/dbpZx2r

It's pretty convincing, until you look in between the lips where the teeth are supposed to show through. You see some very clear "AI smudging" artifacts that are a dead giveaway.

Less obviously: - the eyelashes on his left eye look unrealistic - the way the nose connects to the rest of the face (especially in the highlights) is too smudgy - the texture and tone of the skin is very uneven, and again smudgy in various places, indicating that this is a Mr. Potato Head constructed image.

This 5 year old's shaved moustache: https://freeimage.host/i/26lDkG :)

Or this 40 year old with baby teeth! https://imgur.com/a/v8rEMaj

also a sort of 5 o'clock shadow around the jawline. Given that it's probably visible on most men in the dataset it just seems to have wrongly applied it to all of them

Following the advice to look for "fakeness" markers I would mention a few recurring ones: 1) unreal background (like monsters or distorted images) 2) strange-looking moles or birthmarks (white, very round or else) 3) distorted texts and logos on clothing 4) fabrics of the garments don't look real too 5) jewelry gets distorted or multiplied 6) glasses often look fake on the edges

Nevertheless this looks impressive.

The pupils are almost always a giveaway. Look closely. Harder to see on darker eyes though.

Teeth, too if they are showing.

The ears often don't match

Well, in a truly dystopian future, these flaws will no longer occur. :)

Or just with another 5 years of improving this technology.

Possible commercial application: Pornographic deep fakes of niche fetishes the don't have much original content because of how small the market is. Make the controls (race, number of people in scene, etc) toggleable by the user for maximal satisfaction...

Now to literally set this into motion and create movies which don't exist and claim copyright on those movies. Keep it up long[0] enough and produce a movie which _will_ exist or _does_ exist.

Substitute movie with your choice of medium.

[0]: Longer than that, even

"Creating movies which don't exist" is the same as "creating movies".

Nice one, reminds me of L-Space in the Discworld books.

"Additionally, one can read any book ever written, any book that will be written at some point and books that were planned for writing that were not, as well as any book that could possibly be written." [0]

[0]: https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/L-space

Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters can produce a work of Shakespeare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Or infinite AI creating infinite movies can create Avatar.

I remember there being an archive that indexed a random stream of numbers from which you could download a range of random bytes, the idea being theoretically everything can be found within the dataset. I think it was done in protest of copyright or something like that.

I can't remember the name of it for the life of me.

Library of babel?

Yep - Vsauce has a nice video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1bbInWfAgA

Do monkeys really produce an uniform distribution of keystrokes? Humans don't, and they're also primates.

It's hard to describe, but to me the eyes always look "wrong". They look too symmetrical, like one is just a mirror of the other, with no compensation for lighting. But they also look asymmetrical, like one is just a copy+translate of the other, so the almond shape of the eye doesn't go in the right direction. That's not exactly right, but those are the feelings I get.

Oddly, I found the people more believable than the cats. The people looked realistic about 70% of the time; the cats, never.

I did pull one body horror: a little girl, with a background of flowers, and a petal-shaped wound in her cheek. Freaky stuff.

Just got this creepy one : imgur.com/a/L4DVsVQ

Taking that classical principle of being the best looking in his friends' group a little far, it seems.

The big tell for me are the ears, which are frequently distorted, and ghastly ‘people’ in the background.

Yes, I think that the gender and race of the ears doesn’t always match. Maybe gender is the wrong word, but some ears look too delicate for the individual or something. I’d never guess these were fake if I saw one by itself though.

Yeah, I didn't spend as much time studying ears as I did eyes in art school, but now that you mention it, I see it.

Most of the "parts" of the face look like they've been clipped out of a magazine and photoshopped on. There are subtle errors in orientation that don't match the head's orientation. It makes the overall head look flatter than the lighting on the face would suggest.

Incidentally, I work in VR, and mismatch of depth cues between color and position are things that can cause simulator sickness.

The eyes creep me out right away. Uncanny valley.

Maybe I just haven’t looked at enough samples but the eyes look acceptable to me.

I agreed with you, then flicked through a load. There is something going on that isn’t right. Having the eyes at the same coordinates each time is quite creepy too.

LOL, you folks blew it for me. I didn't see it, now I can't unsee it :)

Really? I find them pretty convincing.

I realise this is subjective but I haven't yet seen an image of a person who is _very_ (conventionally) attractive.

These all seem to range between not attractive and average for me.

This is how fake profiles are created for dating sites :)

No black people? I refreshed about 50 times and not one black person. Small number of Asians.