This has changed. It's hard to tell they're fake. For example, each reload of https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ produces a new computer-generated image of a person.
You're right, that's better than it used to be by orders of magnitude. However, there remain things that "just don't look right". The most obvious I can spot is the teeth, followed by warped edges (odd indentations, a missing ear that ought to merely be partially hidden), followed by the eyes(more subtle, but definitely there). The "big swathes of skin" are generally fine. There are also wrong numbers of teeth, partially missing eyebrows, etc. Finally, there's not much correlation between apparent ethnicity and facial characteristics or hair. All these "just look wrong" enough to put someone off of a marketing brochure.
These are random images though. If you do want something specific, you can dial the right knobs to fix the issues you mentioned and match up the features you don't like. Adding some extra constraints should be possible if you actually want commercial usage.
This is exactly why I read hacker news. This is both perturbing and amazing all in the same time with all the links you need to understand how it works under the hood. Thanks!
several of them I looked at had malformed ear (I assume the training set had earings and gauges and such mixed in) and one had a tuft of of hair growing out of their neck
It's hard to generate perfect images at high resolution. The fact that they are even plausible at high resolution is very impressive. If these were downscaled to 128x128 you would literally not be able to distinguish real from fake.
Some looked creepy, others looked average, others looked practically real. You can still retouch them a little using Photoshop and you have something that is 99.9% real. Good enough for a campaign.
It's time to check again. The latest ones are indistinguishable from real humans, at least to my eye. Somehow the uncanny valley has been crossed already.
