3 ms·
You're setting up a strawman of statistics. You're describing a small part of a large field. Stats has been more than what you're describing for longer than ML
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
You're setting up a strawman of statistics. You're describing a small part of a large field. Stats has been more than what you're describing for longer than ML has been a phrase.
The only real useful definition these days is that stats is learning from data that happens in the stats department and ML is learning from data that happens in the CS department.
- bonoboTP 6y agoI'm fine with that. I would also hope for more collab cross-departments, but the incentives in academia are unfortunately not exactly set up the right way. People become protective of "their turf". I wrote a bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26984234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26984234 I think it's good if people are aware of the origins of the methods they use. Regression wasn't invented under the umbrella of ML, but is analyzed from a particular angle in ML more than in stats.