2 ms·
This sounds like in the end you agree that a lot of ML is applied stats? The problem in my mind is not that ML is using a lot of stats (obviously), it's that f
by Certhas 5y ago
This sounds like in the end you agree that a lot of ML is applied stats?
The problem in my mind is not that ML is using a lot of stats (obviously), it's that foundational mathematical concepts get labelled as ML techniques. This is why the title of the post is so annoying. This totally obscures the structure of the field. E.g. I wouldn't call linear algebra a quantum mechanics technique. I would say that QM uses (and spurred the development of) a lot of LinAlg.
- bonoboTP 5y agoWell, if ML people didn't use the word "regression" and named their use of it differently that would also upset stats people. The point is, when you listen to an ML person introduce regression in a lecture it will look and feel different from when a stats person does it. ML-type regression is part of ML. Stats type regression doesn't cut it. They care about different aspects, flesh out stuff that's not very relevant for ML and ignore parts that are more important for ML.