Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42411878›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2026

AI-generated faces are becoming more trustworthy.

Alexis A McGuire, Maty Bohacek, Hany Farid, Paul J Taylor, Sophie J Nightingale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexis A McGuireDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Maty BohacekDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Hany FaridSchool of Information, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Paul J TaylorDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sophie J NightingaleDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has democratized access to high-quality image generation, creating both opportunities and risks. Research shows that generative adversarial networks (GANs) can generate faces that are nearly indistinguishable from and more trustworthy than real ones. However, the literature currently contains no direct comparison of the realism and trustworthiness of GAN-synthesized faces and faces produced by more recent models. Here we test whether faces generated by diffusion models (DMs), a new and more powerful GAI architecture, elicit trust and have similarly passed through the uncanny valley. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 169) saw 96 facial images and for each face indicated whether it was real or AI generated. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 87) again saw 96 facial images and this time were asked to rate how trustworthy each face appeared. We find that DMs produce less photo-realistic faces than GANs, but those faces are rated as more trustworthy than GANs and real faces. As the realism and availability of GAI continue to increase, it is now-more than ever-critical to understand this threat and develop strategies to mitigate potential harms to individuals, organizations, and democracies.

Indexed as

FaceFacial RecognitionTrustAdultFemaleGenerative Adversarial NetworksGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42411878
PMCPMC13361910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.