Not one of the photos stays true to reality. I know AI will get better and more accurate and make less mistakes, but the end state is the platforms, or sellers, saying "Eh, let's just cover up that little hole or up the quality of the flooring or remove that branch that obscures the view."

(When renters might be deciding entirely from photos, or be over a barrel when they arrive in town the last week of August, and are told to show up for a 5-minute tour with their checkbook in hand).

I'm starting to see people using photo enhancement for old apartments here in Boston, to obscure the condition of the apartment.

Originally, it was just the superwide shots that made the space look much bigger than it is. (Incidentally, be careful when removing distortion cues that this is going on, or you might make it even more deceptive.)

Then it started doing generated "staged" furniture and decorations, which are still fairly innocuous, although they can potentially cover up problems with condition and quirky architecture.

But now, with all-out "AI-filtered" "photos" (or sometimes 3D renders, like for new-construction apartment floorplans), you can't necessarily tell that a $3K 1BR is 150 years old, and minimally maintained, with grime that can't be cleaned, and suspended ceiling panels hiding the collapsed original ceiling, and the only renovation in the last few decades was a can of paint sloshed onto unfinished sheet of plywood wall from a budget apartment conversion.

My impression is that the people that would be willing to pay for this, are the top producers who are likely to have a professional photographer doing it anyway. And the people who need it the most are the ones who seem to be the most thrifty -- the long-tail that aren't top producers. Maybe there's a middle ground in that grey area there that they're targeting?

(For reference: I'm head sys admin for an MLS; in the arena but not directly working with agents)