Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. News

What happens when AI detectors fail? Researchers say we must be trained to spot fake AI faces

Researchers say spotting AI faces may soon depend more on people than software

Add as a preferred source on Google
Zuckerberg Deepfake
Image used with permission by copyright holder

Artificial intelligence has become remarkably good at creating fake human faces. So good, in fact, that the old tricks people relied on – counting fingers, spotting warped earrings, or looking for distorted backgrounds – are quickly becoming obsolete. According to a new study highlighted by the BBC, the next line of defence may not be a better AI detector at all. It might simply be a better-trained human.

Researchers from the University of Aberdeen, working alongside Australia’s National University, found that people can dramatically improve their ability to distinguish AI-generated faces from real ones after a relatively short period of structured training. Instead of hunting for obvious visual glitches, participants were taught to recognise subtle patterns that modern image generators still struggle to replicate consistently.

The AI race is forcing humans to evolve too

For years, identifying AI-generated images felt almost trivial. Early models often produced six fingers, mismatched earrings or impossible shadows. But today’s generators, powered by systems such as StyleGAN3 and newer diffusion models, have largely moved beyond those tell-tale mistakes. As a result, researchers argue that relying on visual defects is no longer an effective strategy.

Instead, participants were trained to judge six perceptual qualities that AI faces often share. These include unusually perfect facial symmetry, highly proportional features, above-average attractiveness, generic-looking facial structures, limited emotional expression, and faces that are surprisingly difficult to remember after you’ve looked away.

Recommended Videos

The results were striking. Before training, participants correctly identified AI-generated faces only around 40 percent of the time. After roughly an hour of guided learning and repeated exposure to both real and synthetic faces, accuracy climbed to nearly 80 percent. A handful of participants even approached perfect detection scores. More importantly, their confidence became better aligned with their actual performance, something earlier research suggested was often missing.

Why spotting AI faces matters more than ever

This isn’t simply an academic exercise anymore. Deepfake technology is already being used in financial fraud, political influence campaigns and online identity scams. The BBC points to Deloitte estimates suggesting losses from AI-enabled deepfake fraud in the United States could rise to £40 billion next year, up sharply from around £12 billion in 2023. It also references a widely reported Hong Kong case in which scammers allegedly used a deepfake video call to convince an employee to transfer £25 million. Meanwhile, an earlier Associated Press investigation uncovered an AI-generated LinkedIn profile that successfully infiltrated US policy circles.

The study also highlights another important issue: AI systems remain less reliable at generating older faces, younger faces and people from underrepresented ethnic groups because of biases in their training data. Those imperfections may still provide useful clues for human observers.

Perhaps the most interesting takeaway is that the human brain appears to learn much like AI itself. By repeatedly seeing examples of real and fake faces, people gradually develop an intuitive sense of authenticity rather than relying on a single giveaway. Researchers believe that instinct may become one of our strongest tools as generative AI continues to improve.

The irony is difficult to ignore. As artificial intelligence becomes better at pretending to be human, humans may have to start training themselves the way machines do – through data, repetition, and pattern recognition. AI detectors may keep improving, but the research suggests they shouldn’t be the only defence. Human judgement still has a role to play; it just needs an upgrade.

Moinak Pal
Moinak Pal is has been working in the technology sector covering both consumer centric tech and automotive technology for the…
Google’s new Magic Pointer Play Store listing reveals a Gemini shortcut built for Googlebooks
The unannounced app turns the cursor into a contextual AI tool for search, image creation, and shopping
Plant, Text, Business Card

Google has quietly published a new Play Store listing for Magic Pointer, an unannounced app built for Googlebooks. Updated on July 10, the app turns the cursor into a Gemini shortcut that can act on whatever a user selects on screen.

Magic Pointer can send an image to Lens, generate a related image, or surface a shopping action without forcing users to open a separate chatbot. Regular Android devices currently show as incompatible, so the listing offers an early preview rather than a broad release.

Read more
You can stop using AI, but this new report says you probably can’t escape it
A UK survey found that most people feel AI exposure is unavoidable, raising harder questions about consent, privacy, and whether opting out is still realistic
AI Chatbots

More people are trying to use less AI, but avoiding it altogether may already be impossible.

A survey of 2,055 UK adults found that 42% deliberately limit how much AI they use. Another 70% said avoiding AI exposure would be difficult or impossible, even when they actively wanted less of it.

Read more
The face on an AI interviewer may matter as much as the decision it makes
Researchers found that race and gender matching changed how fairly rejected applicants viewed an automated interview, even though everyone received the same outcome
File, Computer Hardware, Electronics

An AI hiring system can treat every applicant the same and still leave some people feeling targeted. Researchers found that rejected candidates judged an automated interview differently depending on the race and gender of the avatar delivering the result.

Around 220 participants completed a simulated interview for a fictional customer support role with one of four photorealistic AI avatars. Everyone was rejected, yet perceptions of fairness shifted with the interviewer’s appearance. An algorithm audit could miss that reaction because candidates don’t experience the system as raw code. They experience a face asking questions and judging their answers.

Read more