From the article (and where I slowly stopped reading): "The images produced by Cameos were slightly cartoony, meaning that the digital avatar looked a little bi

From the article (and where I slowly stopped reading): "The images produced by Cameos were slightly cartoony, meaning that the digital avatar looked a little bit more like a Bitmoji than the user’s real face. But the effect was essentially the same — it took someone’s likeness and spliced it onto another body or into another scene. " This is presented as DeepFake-like technology. However the whole issue with DeepFakes is that they are (or can be) indistinguishable from a real video. Any tech or feature that deliberately or due to limitations in the approach doesn't do that isn't really DeepFaking anything, so I don't quite think the article is on the right track. Once companies actually incorporate DeepFake tech we might be able to make some sort of early assessment, but it's way too early to draw any conclusions yet. Edit: I guess the author gets this notion from a TechCrunch article they linked, which also essentially calls all these type of filters DeepFaking. It's not. Really, look at the videos of Cameo. On a side note, we should really have a proper name for this (ultrarealistic fake videos), since the origin of DeepFake is indeed a bit too specific to the technology. Who knows, maybe in the future there are other approaches that will work as well.