Why they call a virtual avatar a deepfake beats me though....
What's the difference? In both cases you're simulating somebody's face in a way that doesn't actually require having the original to drive it.
Another interesting application would be "zoom" meetings where everyone is shown around the table or in the audience and it processes their emotive state in real time. That could help speakers engage with the audience in a better way.
Of course the "bad" uses of this tech are pretty out there too, from porn apps, to ripping people off by getting a "zoom" from a relative.
See Permutation City[0]. Another application is actually masking reactions selectively. There's some interesting aspects that play out with respect to this and some other interesting aspects tech that people will now view as near Sci-Fi. The VR identity cloning is a common Sci-Fi plot, not specifically a Permutation City thing. Great book, highly recommend.
Add in stuff like head tracking and you get a very natural feeling to interacting. Give me haptics and I'll be super happy.
Hand gestures go a long way too
The big roadblock to commercialisation for the moment is the original capture — for the paper they used a 110-camera capture rig under ideal lighting conditions.
In the above podcast Zuckerberg mentions that in the future people will be able to use their phones to do that same capture, but I don’t think that tech is coming next year.
I wonder if there’ll be an interim period where people who want high-quality avatars will have to book an appointment.
https://shunsukesaito.github.io/rgca/
Here's the discussion for it(empty as of right now): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38554537