This conversation feels like there's just a slight disconnect between what "trustworthy" means. It's either an intrinsic quality that one possesses, or it's an external quality created by outside perception. It either means you are actually worthy of trust or that others find you worthy of trust.
Or, at least, I had both definitions rattling around in my head, and had to think through which one I actually believed is correct. Sample size of 1 and all that.
We know what 'trustworthy means', it's not an extant perception.
We know exactly what we're doing when we estimate trustworthiness from a particular attribute.
The particpants may or may not know some of the faces are AI, it's besides the point.
'Estimate how well a football player's career will go from a photo'. It doesn't matter if the photos are real or not - it's an understanding of which characteristics we use to estimate trustorthiness, assent knowing their actual trustworthiness.
Asserting that everyone shares your semantic understanding and then only arguing based on that seems unproductive. Especially when it's unclear which of the definitions I used that you're arguing that "we know." You say it's not a perception, but then describe perception in the last sentence.
Or, at least, I had both definitions rattling around in my head, and had to think through which one I actually believed is correct. Sample size of 1 and all that.