"Avatar" is being stretched to cover everything from learned-data signing generation to 3D models to video-to-video skin overlays on a human signer. These are fundamentally different technologies. Who gets to define the terms — and should conferences require presenters to label their tech honestly?

In the sign language AI space, "avatar" now covers at least three very different things: true signing generation from learned data, 3D rigged models, and video-to-video tools that take a real human performance and swap the skin or face. Lumping them under one word makes it impossible for the community, researchers, procurement officers, or even funders to compare what's actually being built. Without shared definitions — and without venues enforcing them — misleading labels become the norm and trust erodes. What should the taxonomy look like, and whose job is it to hold the line?