5 ms·

What do you mean?

by ealhad 8y ago

What do you mean?

levesque 8y ago
I guess he means you don't need advanced knowledge of learning theory in order to apply machine learning algorithms. Not sure if I agree. It's always good to know the limits of the algorithms you are using, but it does require a time investment.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  There's a philosophy that, once an algorithm has been discovered, you don't really need to understand it to put it into practice. Why understand how sort algorithms work when "sort" is already built into every library? I'd be curious to see some sort of scientific or formal study on that, but in my experience, the people who view most algorithms as black boxes - they understand more or less what you get out when you put in the right things, but have no interest on how it gets to that point - can produce applications that do work correctly under optimum conditions, but fail in surprising ways when faced with unexpected input.
trentmb 8y ago
Shoveling data into an ML library is relatively straightforward compared to understanding what that library is doing and why.
fwdpropaganda 8y ago
I'm not the person you asked, but from what I've seen HN tends to have the attitude that you don't need to understand "maths", "algorithms", "statistics", "data structures", or any of that complicated stuff, all you need is to get your hands dirty with code. If you buy that view, then this book is the opposite of what HN usually likes.
- levesque 8y ago
  Up to a point this applies to the more complex machine learning stuff, but I would argue against people on here not understanding algorithms and data structures. Knowing data structures and algorithms is what makes the difference between a good programmer and an average/bad one.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  I'm not the person you asked, but from what I've seen HN tends to have the attitude that you don't need to understand "maths", "algorithms", "statistics", "data structures", or any of that complicated stuff, all you need is to get your hands dirty with code. I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in general. Interesting how perspectives differ on this site. I guess it's similar to how some people argue that HN is overrun with government hating libertarians, while other people think the site is overrun by granola eating, tree hugging, hippie communists. :-)
  - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
    > I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in general. Haha I think I know what camp you're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-) While we disagree on which group is larger on HN, I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you).
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      Haha I think I know what camp you're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-) Interestingly enough, I don't really think of myself as falling specifically into either. But I'm a pragmatist, so I lean a bit towards the idea that you can get things done without necessarily always needing a lot of theoretical knowledge. BUT at the same time, I think that having a solid theoretical understanding is almost always desirable, and all other things being equal, I'd rather know the theory than not. :-) I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you). Agreed. I would think that is probably a big part of it.

What do you mean?

by ealhad 8y ago

What do you mean?

I guess he means you don't need advanced knowledge of learning theory in order to apply machine learning algorithms. Not sure if I agree. It's always good to know the limits of the algorithms you are using, but it does require a time investment.

commandlinefan 8y ago
There's a philosophy that, once an algorithm has been discovered, you don't really need to understand it to put it into practice. Why understand how sort algorithms work when "sort" is already built into every library? I'd be curious to see some sort of scientific or formal study on that, but in my experience, the people who view most algorithms as black boxes - they understand more or less what you get out when you put in the right things, but have no interest on how it gets to that point - can produce applications that do work correctly under optimum conditions, but fail in surprising ways when faced with unexpected input.

trentmb 8y ago

Shoveling data into an ML library is relatively straightforward compared to understanding what that library is doing and why.

fwdpropaganda 8y ago

I'm not the person you asked, but from what I've seen HN tends to have the attitude that you don't need to understand "maths", "algorithms", "statistics", "data structures", or any of that complicated stuff, all you need is to get your hands dirty with code. If you buy that view, then this book is the opposite of what HN usually likes.

levesque 8y ago
Up to a point this applies to the more complex machine learning stuff, but I would argue against people on here not understanding algorithms and data structures. Knowing data structures and algorithms is what makes the difference between a good programmer and an average/bad one.
mindcrime 8y ago
I'm not the person you asked, but from what I've seen HN tends to have the attitude that you don't need to understand "maths", "algorithms", "statistics", "data structures", or any of that complicated stuff, all you need is to get your hands dirty with code. I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in general. Interesting how perspectives differ on this site. I guess it's similar to how some people argue that HN is overrun with government hating libertarians, while other people think the site is overrun by granola eating, tree hugging, hippie communists. :-)
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago
  > I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in general. Haha I think I know what camp you're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-) While we disagree on which group is larger on HN, I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you).
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Haha I think I know what camp you're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-) Interestingly enough, I don't really think of myself as falling specifically into either. But I'm a pragmatist, so I lean a bit towards the idea that you can get things done without necessarily always needing a lot of theoretical knowledge. BUT at the same time, I think that having a solid theoretical understanding is almost always desirable, and all other things being equal, I'd rather know the theory than not. :-) I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you). Agreed. I would think that is probably a big part of it.