2 ms·
Eh, I disagree. Not from a normative point of view, but from a descriptivist one. Most people don't consider doing a PCA to be machine learning. I'm a statisti
by CrazyStat 7y ago
Eh, I disagree. Not from a normative point of view, but from a descriptivist one. Most people don't consider doing a PCA to be machine learning.
I'm a statistician, not a machine learning guy. PCA is a great statistical method. But doing a PCA and calling it machine learning seems a tad misleading.
- jmmcd 7y agoWell, I certainly agree that many people use ML in this way. But to me it's just bad terminology. The thing that happens during ML -- the L part -- must be the same as what happens during statistical learning. Many (sophisticated) ML algorithms are statistical in nature, so there is nothing there that stops simple stat-learning algorithms from being ML algorithms. And there is nothing in the terminology that says ML has to be sophisticated relative to stat learning.