Am I missing something? This research stops short of tying speech to any individual's appearance. It isn't even an advancement toward that goal, which it expli

Am I missing something? This research stops short of tying speech to any individual's appearance. It isn't even an advancement toward that goal, which it explicitly doesn't have. The facial identity part seems little more than an average/example visualization of traits (age, gender, etc), which can be inferred from speech data with some accuracy (as we've always attempted in the form of mental models in our brains). Not trying to be contrarian, genuinely wondering why I'm not among the concerned, and if I'm missing something.