Beauty is in the AI of the beholder: MLLMs systematically overrate facial attractiveness

Beauty assessments from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly popular amongst users, companies, and aestheticians. This raises the question of whether these AI models can accurately reflect human judgments of attractiveness. In a pre- registered exploratory study, we compared the attractiveness ratings of 2,513 human participants to four widely used commercial AI models: Claude, Gemini, GPT, and Grok. Results showed that MLLMs systematically rate faces more favourably and within a narrower range than humans and, at the time of study, do not reproduce human ratings in absolute terms. However, MLLMs exhibit strong correlations with human attractiveness judgments, accurately tracking the rank-ordering of faces. MLLMs may judge faces by different cues than humans; only face age was a predictor of facial attractiveness in both humans and MLLMs, with inconsistent patterns across models for ethnicity and gender. AI models strongly agree with one another, except for Grok, which also showed the lowest agreement with humans. Our findings suggest that while they may be able to approximate rank-orderings of human attractiveness, current off-the-shelf commercial MLLMs systematically overrate the beauty of human faces.

Frontier vision-language models have overtaken young adults at detecting AI-generated portraits -- but not their calibration

AI image generators now create face portraits that are hard to tell from real photographs. Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly proposed to flag such images. We benchmarked 19 VLMs on the same 198 face portraits -- real photographs and identity-matched ChatGPT-4o and Imagen 3 versions -- under the same task as our earlier study of 1,667 adults (85% correct overall; accuracy fell steeply with age). The June-2026 cohort of 14 models only matched adults in their 20s-30s. Four weeks later the ceiling broke. Among five July-2026 releases under the identical protocol, gpt-5.6-sol reached 92.8% balanced accuracy (five-draw mean 92.1%), clearly above adults in their 20s (88.5%), and claude-fable-5 detected every AI image while averaging 91.9%. Model sensitivity now exceeds young adults decisively (d' up to 3.4 versus ~ 2.4). What has not been overtaken is human calibration. Model criteria spread from c = -1.10 to +1.45 while humans sit near zero at every age; both new leaders are biased (+0.44, -0.97), and only a few mid-ranked models approach the human balance. Changing the labelled examples still flipped about one answer in four. The best machines now out-see young adults here, without matching the human balance between suspicion and trust.

Matched Outcomes, Divergent Gaze: How Foveated MLLMs Search Compared to Humans

Human visual search is serial: the fovea must land on a candidate to confirm it, and those landings form a scanpath. Whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs), given the same foveated input, search as humans do bears on their use as models of human vision and on attention-alignment scores. We compare three general-purpose MLLMs with human eye-movement scanpaths on goal-directed search (COCO-Search18), driving each model fixation by fixation through an identical, human-matched foveated view and assessing it along three axes: the decision of target presence, the efficiency of reaching the target, and the gaze process itself. The axes dissociate. On the decision and on target acquisition the models match or exceed humans, detecting present targets near ceiling and reaching them on the first saccade more often than people do. The gaze process is not human. Under the human-matched condition, all three share one signature: low-entropy, large-amplitude, self-consistent scanpaths that agree with themselves far more closely than two humans agree with each other. That is consistent with a single-pass, non-serial architecture rather than a limit of acuity. Matched retinal input reproduces where humans look but not how the looking unfolds in time, and no degradation regime recovers human-like search at human-like success. The gap sits on a process axis that answer-alignment and saliency metrics do not measure. Because they miss it, such metrics cannot certify human-like vision, and zero-shot models suit outcome and spatial questions but not temporal, process-level ones.

FriendBench: Benchmarking Dyadic Familiarity Inference in Humans and Multimodal Large Language Models

Reading a social situation often depends on behavior, not words alone. We introduce FriendBench, a benchmark for inferring whether two people are already familiar or are meeting as strangers, from a 20-second clip of a dyadic ice-breaker conversation. Every pair answers the same type of prompt, so only the manner of interaction can reveal the answer. Across text, audio, and video, we compare 26 models from seven companies against matched human panels over 96 balanced dyads. The best model and the human crowd are statistically indistinguishable on accuracy in every modality, but reach it differently: humans stay balanced across the two answers, while the strongest models lean toward "stranger"---a difference in effective prior, not discrimination. Richer channels help both unequally, and only humans gain from visible behavior on top of speech. We release the stimuli, human ratings, and model predictions.

AI vs Human Expert Reasoning: Assessing Agreements in Building Typology Predictions based on Street View Imagery

This research investigates the potential of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to infer building typologies: Construction, Current Use, and Storeys from Google Street View (GSV) images. Predictions generated by VLMs are compared with inference by human experts (civil engineers and architects) as a source of manually labelled ground-truth data. We evaluate several state-of-the-art VLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash. By applying different scaling strategies and prompting techniques, we found that Chain-of-Thought prompts provide an overall more stable model performance. We also investigate the reasoning behind VLMs' building-typology predictions by examining the probabilities of keywords appearing in AI explanations. This enabled us to analyse patterns in these reasonings and identify key themes driving both agreements and disagreements between VLM and expert labels. We find that AI tends to focus on visual indicators, whereas human experts place greater emphasis on broader contextual cues and domain knowledge, in addition to visual cues. Overall, VLM can approximate experts' capability in building-typology classification at scale, with an average accuracy of approximately 70%. The study demonstrates the VLM's potential for AI automation in tasks that require pattern recognition and object identification in an urban context. AI have the potential to serve as complementary and collaborative tools for urban analysis, leveraging their strengths in understanding visual patterns. This study contributes to the exploration of the efficiency and scalability of AI visual prediction and provides insights into the reasoning processes that could support automation processes in urban analysis and prediction.