4 ms·

I completely disagree, and this is a notion that seems to have become popular but is completely off base. For some reason, people seem to believe that statistic

I completely disagree, and this is a notion that seems to have become popular but is completely off base. For some reason, people seem to believe that statistics is for inference, and machine learning is for prediction, as if statistics hasn't been concerned with matters of prediction for hundreds of years. Machine learning is closer to being a subfield of statistics, in which methods tend to be non-parametric, have an emphasis on automation, and tend to require (but not necessarily) large amounts of data. I think the entire reason for this notion is due to CS folks wanting in on the field of predictive analytics, but not wanting to admit that they don't have even minimal understanding of statistics or probability theory. But if they call it machine learning and insist enough that it is a completely different discipline, then they can feel better about themselves and their models that they threw together.

sideshowb 8y ago
I think you're on point except for cynicism in your last paragraph. Machine learning came from genuinely novel research into ai. Over time the connections between ml and statistics became apparent, ml tightened up it's statistical rigour, stats took on some new techniques, and data science was born. I'm sure some have played the machine learning card cynically, as with any buzzword, but don't throw out baby with bathwater.
- thousandautumns 8y ago
  I absolutely am not disparaging the actual research in machine learning borne from academics studying CS and AI. Rather, I'm referring to the seemingly recent trend by people to insist on severing all ties between statistics and machine learning. And it consistently seems to be made in articles like the one above written by authors who almost seem happy to insist they know nothing, and need to know nothing, regarding statistics. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but its hard not to see ulterior motives given the ridiculous amounts of hype regarding machine learning, the innumerable boot camps, and to-be data science influencers.

sideshowb 8y ago

I think you're on point except for cynicism in your last paragraph. Machine learning came from genuinely novel research into ai. Over time the connections between ml and statistics became apparent, ml tightened up it's statistical rigour, stats took on some new techniques, and data science was born. I'm sure some have played the machine learning card cynically, as with any buzzword, but don't throw out baby with bathwater.

thousandautumns 8y ago
I absolutely am not disparaging the actual research in machine learning borne from academics studying CS and AI. Rather, I'm referring to the seemingly recent trend by people to insist on severing all ties between statistics and machine learning. And it consistently seems to be made in articles like the one above written by authors who almost seem happy to insist they know nothing, and need to know nothing, regarding statistics. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but its hard not to see ulterior motives given the ridiculous amounts of hype regarding machine learning, the innumerable boot camps, and to-be data science influencers.