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).
Perhaps they could improve the deception by simply cropping out 100% of the background.
a lot of the fake ones also have a recognisable skin gloss.
Joking aside, how do I know they're not doing this? I don't have their dataset so are these people really very "novel" or just slightly messed up existing photos? I have the same concerns with recent writing AI that's been making headlines. It's too good and I swear it's just copying a couple sentences from here and a couple from there, or near enough so as to make no difference.
One could mask these artifacts by blurring, adding noise or downscaling further.
 - https://authors.library.caltech.edu/6498/1/PERieeetpami90.pd...
 Extreme example: https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8449/8048065891_7fab061307.jpg
"On this website, we present pairs of images: a real one from the FFHQ collection, and a synthetic one, as generated by the StyleGAN system and posted to thispersondoesnotexist.com, an web-based demonstration of the StyleGan system that posts a new artificial image every 2 seconds."
Its amazing to think about the implications of being able to create faces that look real. It can have an impact on police questionnaires, future holograms, may be used to adulterate security camera's data and so many others. I wonder if we will be able to keep up with the changes in technology to protect what society holds dear.
The game would be harder if the real faces were less asymmetrical in detail (no hats, etc.). And a lot harder if you needed to pick all of the real (or fake) faces, rather than pick the real one knowing the other is false.
I tested your theory and the loading order was a mixed bag. The first loaded definitely isn't the real person. It's about 50/50 here.
it's a pity that one image is progressive jpeg and another is baseline
this makes me always see which one is real
I have some degree of faceblindness (often can't recognize someone I know well if they've changed something like makeup or hairstyle or clothing), as well as difficulty in picking up nonverbal cues. I wonder whether brain differences like this might affect image recognition?
I would assume that that is a bias of the "real" photographs, because who would keep a picture where the subject doesn't look at the camera.
Anyone shooting candids; even lots of portraits have the subject looking off into the distance or somewhere else other than at the camera. I mean, sure, if your are shooting for a photo ID, you won't keep a shot that isn't directly looking at the camera, but...
(Which isn't to say it's not a real bias in genuine photos, just not as absolute as you seem to suggest it should be expected to be.)
I wonder where they get their real images from...