|
|
|
|
|
by nateb2022
165 days ago
|
|
> Zero-shot doesn't make sense anyway, as how would the model know what voice it should sound like (unless it's a celebrity voice or similar included in the training data where it's enough to specify a name). It makes perfect sense; you are simply confusing training samples with inference context. "Zero-shot" refers to zero gradient updates (retraining) required to handle a new class. It does not mean "zero input information." > how would the model know what voice it should sound like It uses the reference audio just like a text based model uses a prompt. > unless it's a celebrity voice or similar included in the training data where it's enough to specify a name If the voice is in the training data, that is literally the opposite of zero-shot. The entire point of zero-shot is that the model has never encountered the speaker before. |
|
Thus if you feed a the model target voice, ie an example of the desired output vouce, it sure seems like it should be classified as one-shot.
However it seems the zero-shot in voice cloning is relative to learning, and in contrast to one-shot learning[1].
So a bit overloaded term causing confusion from what I can gather.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-shot_learning_(computer_vi...