3 ms·

are you majoring in applied math? can it replace ML and AI?

by botw 11y ago

graycat 11y ago
IMHO, might look at ML as based heavily on the Leo Breiman work in random forests and classification and regression trees (CART). Breiman was a first class applied mathematician, a student of M. Loeve at Berkeley and later a professor, of, say, statistics, at Berkeley. So, one way to get valuable information is to take in some data, manipulate it, and report the results. IMHO, by far the best way to get powerful data manipulations is applied math, possibly with some advanced pure math prerequisites. E.g., some of the best applied math long on the shelves of the research libraries for manipulating data to get valuable information is just astoundingly powerful stuff, and I don't see computer science work in ML and AI as an effective way to compete. E.g., how to do as well as Wiener filtering, linear programming, optimal control without just programming what is already known? Or, if we didn't have the simplex algorithm for linear programming, I don't see the approaches of ML or AI as replacing them. E.g., ML and AI are supposed to be good at games, but their approaches to just a large example of just the two person game of paper, scissors, rock would be very clumsy. Why? The solution is a nice application of linear programming, and that is darned clever. Or, want to assign workers to jobs on a production line. Sure, can try AI type approaches, but there is a super nice, fast, exact algorithm, darned clever, and a long way from ML or AI. I'm out of school -- got my Ph.D. in applied math, stochastic optimal control. I'm doing a startup, and the crucial core of the work and its value is some applied math I derived based on some advanced prerequisites. I've published in AI, but my view is that so far there is nothing in AI that is at all close to actual intelligence as we see it in humans. Theorems and proofs are a heck of a powerful methodology and tough to beat. For AI, a super big problem is to define in any meaningful way just what the heck intelligence is, say, enough to get started on a solution. That is, we don't really have a problem statement -- the Turing test might be a test on a candidate solution but is, still, not a problem statement. IMHO, once we do get a problem statement, then the most powerful approach will be via applied math.
- srean 11y ago
  I agree that ML and AI are applied math. It is a, duh, no-brainer. But you might want to revise this: > IMHO, might look at ML as based heavily on the Leo Breiman work in random forests and classification and regression trees (CART). There is a whole lot more to ML than decision forests. We have talked about this before, I suggest that you get started with Vapnik's books. They are not light reading but I can promise you will enjoy them. No seriously, just get those books. In fact his main result is bigger than ML, its a non-asymptotic distribution independent _uniform_ law of large numbers. ML is now in, what can be described as, a post-Vapnik era, but for someone steeped in probability and functional analysis that is the place to start.
srean 11y ago
I don't understand your question. How is ML and AI not applied math ?

are you majoring in applied math? can it replace ML and AI?

by botw 11y ago

are you majoring in applied math? can it replace ML and AI?

IMHO, might look at ML as based heavily on the Leo Breiman work in random forests and classification and regression trees (CART). Breiman was a first class applied mathematician, a student of M. Loeve at Berkeley and later a professor, of, say, statistics, at Berkeley. So, one way to get valuable information is to take in some data, manipulate it, and report the results. IMHO, by far the best way to get powerful data manipulations is applied math, possibly with some advanced pure math prerequisites. E.g., some of the best applied math long on the shelves of the research libraries for manipulating data to get valuable information is just astoundingly powerful stuff, and I don't see computer science work in ML and AI as an effective way to compete. E.g., how to do as well as Wiener filtering, linear programming, optimal control without just programming what is already known? Or, if we didn't have the simplex algorithm for linear programming, I don't see the approaches of ML or AI as replacing them. E.g., ML and AI are supposed to be good at games, but their approaches to just a large example of just the two person game of paper, scissors, rock would be very clumsy. Why? The solution is a nice application of linear programming, and that is darned clever. Or, want to assign workers to jobs on a production line. Sure, can try AI type approaches, but there is a super nice, fast, exact algorithm, darned clever, and a long way from ML or AI. I'm out of school -- got my Ph.D. in applied math, stochastic optimal control. I'm doing a startup, and the crucial core of the work and its value is some applied math I derived based on some advanced prerequisites. I've published in AI, but my view is that so far there is nothing in AI that is at all close to actual intelligence as we see it in humans. Theorems and proofs are a heck of a powerful methodology and tough to beat. For AI, a super big problem is to define in any meaningful way just what the heck intelligence is, say, enough to get started on a solution. That is, we don't really have a problem statement -- the Turing test might be a test on a candidate solution but is, still, not a problem statement. IMHO, once we do get a problem statement, then the most powerful approach will be via applied math.

srean 11y ago
I agree that ML and AI are applied math. It is a, duh, no-brainer. But you might want to revise this: > IMHO, might look at ML as based heavily on the Leo Breiman work in random forests and classification and regression trees (CART). There is a whole lot more to ML than decision forests. We have talked about this before, I suggest that you get started with Vapnik's books. They are not light reading but I can promise you will enjoy them. No seriously, just get those books. In fact his main result is bigger than ML, its a non-asymptotic distribution independent _uniform_ law of large numbers. ML is now in, what can be described as, a post-Vapnik era, but for someone steeped in probability and functional analysis that is the place to start.

srean 11y ago

I don't understand your question. How is ML and AI not applied math ?