He could have meant speed, text, audio, words, or phonemes, with least probably images.
He probably didn't mean phonemes or he wouldn't be asking.
He probably didn't mean arbitrarily slicing 'real' audio and stitching on fake audio - he made repeated references to a video game.
He probably didn't mean inpainting and outpainting imagery, even though he made reference to a video game, because its an audio model.
Thank you for explaining I deserve to get downvoted through the floor multiple times for asking a question because it's "obvious". Maybe you can explain to the rest of the class what he meant then? If it was obviously phonemes, will you then advocate for them being downvoted through the floor since the answer was obvious? Or is it only people who assume good faith and ask what they meant who deserve downvotes?
Inpainting and outpainting of images is when the model generates bits inside or outside the image that don't exist. By analogy he was talking about generating sound inside (I.e. filling gaps) or outside (extrapolating beyond the end) the audio.
I don't know why you would think he was talking about inpainting images, words. This whole discussion is about speech synthesis.
Right, _until he brought up inpainting and outpainting_. And as I already laid out, the audio options made just about as much sense as the art.
I honestly can't believe how committed you are to explaining to me that as the only person who bothered answering, I'm the problem.
I've been in AI art when it was 10 people in an IRC room trying to figure out what to do with a bunch of GPUs an ex-hedge fund manager snapped up, and spent the last week working on porting eSpeak, the bedrock of ~all TTS models, from C++.
It wasn't "obvious" they didn't mean art, and it definitely was not obvious that they want to splice real voice clips at arbitrary points and insert new words without being a detectable fake for a video game. I needed more info to answer. I'm sorry.
