I think it's deliberately misleading to refer to an inkjet print as a "machine dye transfer" print. "Dye transfer" has a very well established usage as a gallery term, and to appropriate it in this way strikes me as parasitic and willful fraud. It is certainly possible to make fine inkjet prints worthy of museum exhibition, so let the process stand on its own without confusing the issue.
As to whether people can tell the difference, I would not be surprised if even experienced printers and curators could not tell the difference between a well made inkjet on baryta paper and a dye transfer on baryta. It takes quite a lot of specialized training to be able to identify a process from the print. I and a few other printers once made some prints for an appraiser who was conducting a workshop in print identification for art appraisers and curators in other fields looking to get into photography. The main purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how difficult it is. We had about 20-odd prints ranging from silver gelatin of a few different varieties, albumen, platinum, to high-end inkjets and inkjets from office printers, Xerox copies, and even one Xerox on overhead projector film, just to see if the students in the workshop could tell that it was a transparency mounted on an opaque backing. I could identify most of them, save for the combined processes like platinum over cyanotype. The workshop leader said that most of the participants couldn't identify more than two or three, but there was one younger curator who worked with photographs who could identify five or so.
So getting back to Sandy's question, what is the motivation for the comparison? If the image quality (whatever this means--dye transfer was never really the sharpest print process) and archival stability of an inkjet print now rivals dye transfer, that's great news, but please, let's not muddle the market by claiming that an inkjet is a dye transfer print of any sort.