> To your first question, yes it's just a style of solving a problem that can be implemented in software for 90%+ of the time. What insight is gained by this s

> To your first question, yes it's just a style of solving a problem that can be implemented in software for 90%+ of the time. What insight is gained by this statement? What does it explain? What does it downplay? I'm not currently seeing much value in it. I'll explain why. Saying 'just a method of solving a problem' comes across as reductive without being useful. Imagine if someone said 'flying is just a means of movement' in the context of studying a hummingbird's agility. It says more about the speaker than the subject. It suggests the person is uninterested or focused on other things. So with regards to your statement, it suggests you don't care and/or don't appreciate what makes learning difficult. I'm talking about learning theory. About generalization given data. This is certainly not easy. Yes, it can be encoded in an algorithm, but that does not make it less interesting.