Arryn Robbins, University of Richmond

I’m more of a scroller than a poster on social media. Like many people, I wind down at the end of the day with a scroll binge, taking in videos of Italian grandmothers making pasta or baby pygmy hippos frolicking.

For a while, my feed was filled with immaculately designed tiny homes, fueling my desire for minimalist paradise. Then, I started seeing AI-generated images; many contained obvious errors such as staircases to nowhere or sinks within sinks. Yet, commenters rarely pointed them out, instead admiring the aesthetic.

These images were clearly AI-generated and didn’t depict reality. Did people just not notice? Not care?

As a cognitive psychologist, I’d guess “yes” and “yes.” My expertise is in how people process and use visual information. I primarily investigate how people look for objects and information visually, from the mundane searches of daily life, such as trying to find a dropped earring, to more critical searches, like those conducted by radiologists or search-and-rescue teams.

With my understanding of how people process images and notice − or don’t notice − detail, it’s not surprising to me that people aren’t tuning in to the fact that many images are AI-generated.

We’ve been here before

The struggle to detect AI-generated images mirrors past detection challenges such as spotting photoshopped images or computer-generated images in movies.

But there’s a key difference: Photo editing and CGI require intentional design by artists, while AI images are generated by algorithms trained on datasets, often without human oversight. The lack of oversight can lead to imperfections or inconsistencies that can feel unnatural, such as the unrealistic physics or lack of consistency between frames that characterize what’s sometimes called “AI slop.”

Despite these differences, studies show people struggle to distinguish real images from synthetic ones, regardless of origin. Even when explicitly asked to identify images as real, synthetic or AI-generated, accuracy hovers near the level of chance, meaning people did only a little better than if they’d just guessed.

In everyday interactions, where you aren’t actively scrutinizing images, your ability to detect synthetic content might even be weaker.

Attention shapes what you see, what you miss

Spotting errors in AI images requires noticing small details, but the human visual system isn’t wired for that when you’re casually scrolling. Instead, while online, people take in the gist of what they’re viewing and can overlook subtle inconsistencies.

Visual attention operates like a zoom lens: You scan broadly to get an overview of your environment or phone screen, but fine details require focused effort. Human perceptual systems evolved to quickly assess environments for any threats to survival, with sensitivity to sudden changes − such as a quick-moving predator − sacrificing precision for speed of detection.

This speed-accuracy trade-off allows for rapid, efficient processing, which helped early humans survive in natural settings. But it’s a mismatch with modern tasks such as scrolling through devices, where small mistakes or unusual details in AI-generated images can easily go unnoticed.

People also miss things they aren’t actively paying attention to or looking for. Psychologists call this inattentional blindness: Focusing on one task causes you to overlook other details, even obvious ones. In the famous invisible gorilla study, participants asked to count basketball passes in a video failed to notice someone in a gorilla suit walking through the middle of the scene.

Similarly, when your focus is on the broader content of an AI image, such as a cozy tiny home, you’re less likely to notice subtle distortions. In a way, the sixth finger in an AI image is today’s invisible gorilla − hiding in plain sight because you’re not looking for it.

Efficiency over accuracy in thinking

Our cognitive limitations go beyond visual perception. Human thinking uses two types of processing: fast, intuitive thinking based on mental shortcuts, and slower, analytical thinking that requires effort. When scrolling, our fast system likely dominates, leading us to accept images at face value.

Adding to this issue is the tendency to seek information that confirms your beliefs or reject information that goes against them. This means AI-generated images are more likely to slip by you when they align with your expectations or worldviews. If an AI-generated image of a basketball player making an impossible shot jibes with a fan’s excitement, they might accept it, even if something feels exaggerated.

While not a big deal for tiny home aesthetics, these issues become concerning when AI-generated images may be used to influence public opinion. For example, research shows that people tend to assume images are relevant to accompanying text. Even when the images provide no actual evidence, they make people more likely to accept the text’s claims as true.

Misleading real or generated images can make false claims seem more believable and even cause people to misremember real events. AI-generated images have the power to shape opinions and spread misinformation in ways that are difficult to counter.

Beating the machine

While AI gets better at detecting AI, humans need tools to do the same. Here’s how:

1. Trust your gut. If something feels off, it probably is. Your brain expertly recognizes objects and faces, even under varying conditions. Perhaps you’ve experienced what psychologists call the uncanny valley and felt unease with certain humanoid faces. This experience shows people can detect anomalies, even when they can’t fully explain what’s wrong.
2. Scan for clues. AI struggles with certain elements: hands, text, reflections, lighting inconsistencies and unnatural textures. If an image seems suspicious, take a closer look.
3. Think critically. Sometimes, AI generates photorealistic images with impossible scenarios. If you see a political figure casually surprising baristas or a celebrity eating concrete, ask yourself: Does this make sense? If not, it’s probably fake.
4. Check the source. Is the poster a real person? Reverse image search can help trace a picture’s origin. If the metadata is missing, it might be generated by AI.

AI-generated images are becoming harder to spot. During scrolling, the brain processes visuals quickly, not critically, making it easy to miss details that reveal a fake. As technology advances, slow down, look closer and think critically.

Arryn Robbins, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wendy Whitman Cobb, Air University

Jared Isaacman, billionaire, CEO and nominee to become the next NASA administrator, faced questions on April 9, 2025, from members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation during his confirmation hearing for the position.

Should the Senate confirm him, Isaacman will be the first billionaire – but not the first astronaut – to head NASA. Perhaps even more significant, he will be the first NASA administrator with significant ties to the commercial space industry.

As a space policy expert, I know that NASA leadership matters. The head of the agency can significantly shape the missions it pursues, the science it undertakes and, ultimately, the outcome of America’s space exploration.

An unconventional background

At 16 years old, Isaacman dropped out of high school to start a payment processing company in his basement. The endeavor succeeded and eventually became known as Shift4.

Though he found early success in business, Isaacman also had a love for aviation. In 2009, he set a record for flying around the Earth in a light jet, beating the previous record by more than 20 hours.

While remaining CEO of Shift4, Isaacman founded another company, Draken International. The company eventually assembled the world’s largest fleet of privately owned fighter jets. It now helps to train U.S. Air Force pilots.

In 2019, Isaacman sold his stake in Draken International. In 2020, he took Shift4 public, making him a billionaire.

Isaacman continued to branch out into aerospace, working with SpaceX beginning in 2021. He purchased a crewed flight on the Falcon 9 rocket, a mission that eventually was called Inspiration4. The mission, which he led, represented the first private astronaut flight for SpaceX. It sent four civilians with no previous formal space experience into orbit.

Following the success of Inspiration4, Isaacman worked with SpaceX to develop the Polaris Program, a series of three missions to help build SpaceX’s human spaceflight capabilities. In fall 2024, the first of these missions, Polaris Dawn, launched.

Polaris Dawn added more accomplishments to Isaacman’s resume. Isaacman, along with his crewmate Sarah Gillis, completed the first private spacewalk. Polaris Dawn’s SpaceX Dragon capsule traveled more than 850 miles (1,367 kilometers) from Earth, the farthest distance humans had been since the Apollo missions.

The next adventure: NASA

In December 2024, the incoming Trump administration announced its intention to nominate Isaacman for the post of NASA administrator.

As NASA administrator, Isaacman would oversee all NASA activities at a critical moment in its history. The Artemis program, which has been in progress since 2017, has several missions planned for the next few years.

This includes 2026’s Artemis II mission, which will send four astronauts to orbit the Moon. Then, in 2027, Artemis III will aim to land on it.

But, if Isaacman is confirmed, his tenure would come at a time when there are significant questions about the Artemis program, as well as the extent to which NASA should use commercial space companies like SpaceX. The agency is also potentially facing funding cuts.

Some in the space industry have proposed scrapping the Artemis program altogether in favor of preparing to go to Mars. Among this group is the founder of SpaceX, Elon Musk.

Others have suggested canceling NASA’s Space Launch System, the massive rocket that is being used for Artemis. Instead, they argue that NASA could use commercial systems, like SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s New Glenn.

Isaacman has also dealt with accusations that he is too close to the commercial space industry, and SpaceX in particular, to lead NASA. This has become a larger concern given Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration and its cost-cutting efforts. Some critics are worried that Musk would have an even greater say in NASA if Isaacman is confirmed.

Since his nomination, Isaacman has stopped working with SpaceX on the Polaris Program. He has also made several supportive comments toward other commercial companies.

But the success of any of NASA’s plans depends on having the money and resources necessary to carry them out.

While NASA has been spared major cuts up to this point, it, like many other government agencies, is planning for budget cuts and mass firings. These potential cuts are similar to what other agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services have recently made.

During his confirmation hearing, Isaacman committed to keeping the Artemis program, as well as the Space Launch System, in the short term. He also insisted that NASA could both return to the Moon and prepare for Mars at the same time.

Although Isaacman stated that he believed NASA had the resources to do both at the same time, the agency is still in a time of budget uncertainty, so that may not be possible.

About his relationship with Musk, Isaacman stated that he had not talked to Musk since his nomination in November, and his relationship with SpaceX would not influence his decisions.

Additionally, he committed to carrying out space science missions, specifically to “launch more telescopes, more probes, more rovers.”

But since NASA is preparing for significant cuts to its science budget, there is some speculation that the agency may need to end some science programs, like the Hubble space telescope, altogether.

Isaacman’s future

Isaacman has received support from the larger space community. Nearly 30 astronauts signed a letter in support of his nomination. Former NASA administrators, as well as major industry groups, have signaled their desire for Isaacman’s confirmation.

He also received the support of Senator Ted Cruz, the committee chair.

Barring any major development, Isaacman will likely be confirmed as NASA administrator by the Senate in the coming weeks. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation could approve his nomination once it returns from a two-week break at the end of April. A full vote from the Senate would follow.

If the Senate does confirm him, Isaacman will have several major issues to confront at NASA, all in a very uncertain political environment.

Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sara Machado, Brown University and Irene N. Papanicolas, Brown University

Americans at all wealth levels are more likely to die sooner than their European counterparts, with even the richest U.S. citizens living shorter lives than northern and western Europeans. That is the key finding of our new study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

We also found that while the wealthiest Americans live longer than the poorest, the wealth-mortality gap in the U.S. is far more pronounced than in Europe.

We are a team of health policy researchers who study health systems and how their performance compares across countries.

We analyzed survey data from 73,838 adults ages 50 to 85 across the United States and 16 European countries over a 12-year period and compared how long people across the wealth spectrum lived during the course of our study. The 16 European countries are grouped into European regions: northern and western, southern and eastern Europe.

Our research revealed that people in the wealthiest 25% of the study population across the U.S. and Europe were 40% less likely to die during the study period than the poorest quarter of people. The wealthiest 25% of people in northern and western Europe had mortality rates that were about 35% lower than participants in the wealthiest quartile in the U.S. For those from southern Europe, during the study period this value ranged from 24% to 33%. For those from eastern Europe, the value ranged from 1% to 7%. The poorest individuals in the U.S. appear to have the worst survival, including when compared with the poorest quarter of people in each European region.

Why it matters

Wealth inequality has been rising for decades, but more so in the U.S. than in Europe due to a widening gap between the wealth of the richest and the poorest. At the same time, despite spending significantly more on health care than other wealthy nations, overall, the U.S. consistently demonstrates worse health outcomes, such as higher infant mortality rates and avoidable mortality.

Our study also reveals a wider wealth-mortality gap in the U.S. when compared with Europe. In other words, personal wealth does buy more years of life in the U.S. than in Europe. These findings suggest that personal wealth alone is not enough to compensate for other factors that tend to affect how long people live, such as health behaviors like smoking or heavy drinking, education or social support.

At its core, our research suggests that health outcomes are shaped by much more than just health care systems. It is likely that economic and social policies − from education and employment to housing and food security − play a crucial role in determining how long people live, including across the wealth distribution.

European countries have found ways to reduce health disparities without dramatically increasing health spending. By distributing health-promoting resources more equally across wealth groups, these nations may have created environments where longevity is less dependent on individual wealth.

What still isn’t known

While our study shows clear longevity differences between Americans and Europeans across wealth levels, more work still needs to be done to determine which specific aspects of European social systems − whether health care delivery, education access, retirement security or tax policies − most effectively protect health regardless of personal wealth.

Pinpointing exactly how these factors interact with wealth to influence health outcomes would allow researchers to identify which European policies could be most successfully adapted to improve longevity for all Americans.

What’s next

Looking ahead, we plan to identify which of those policy levers might be most effective in reducing mortality gaps.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Sara Machado, Research Scientist in Health Economics, Brown University and Irene N. Papanicolas, Professor of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.