Testing Human Ability To Detect Deepfake Images of Human Faces

TL;DR

This study evaluates human ability to detect deepfake images of faces, finding overall accuracy only slightly above chance and that simple interventions do not significantly improve detection, highlighting the urgent need for better solutions.

Contribution

The paper provides empirical evidence that humans struggle to reliably identify deepfake images of faces and shows that basic assistance methods are ineffective in improving detection accuracy.

Findings

Overall detection accuracy was 62%.

Interventions did not significantly improve detection.

Certain images were consistently harder to identify.

Abstract

Deepfakes are computationally-created entities that falsely represent reality. They can take image, video, and audio modalities, and pose a threat to many areas of systems and societies, comprising a topic of interest to various aspects of cybersecurity and cybersafety. In 2020 a workshop consulting AI experts from academia, policing, government, the private sector, and state security agencies ranked deepfakes as the most serious AI threat. These experts noted that since fake material can propagate through many uncontrolled routes, changes in citizen behaviour may be the only effective defence. This study aims to assess human ability to identify image deepfakes of human faces (StyleGAN2:FFHQ) from nondeepfake images (FFHQ), and to assess the effectiveness of simple interventions intended to improve detection accuracy. Using an online survey, 280 participants were randomly allocated to one of four groups: a control group, and 3 assistance interventions. Each participant was shown a sequence of 20 images randomly selected from a pool of 50 deepfake and 50 real images of human faces. Participants were asked if each image was AI-generated or not, to report their confidence, and to describe the reasoning behind each response. Overall detection accuracy was only just above chance and none of the interventions significantly improved this. Participants' confidence in their answers was high and unrelated to accuracy. Assessing the results on a per-image basis reveals participants consistently found certain images harder to label correctly, but reported similarly high confidence regardless of the image. Thus, although participant accuracy was 62% overall, this accuracy across images ranged quite evenly between 85% and 30%, with an accuracy of below 50% for one in every five images. We interpret the findings as suggesting that there is a need for an urgent call to action to address this threat.