> seen the term "machine learning" used without criticism yes > would have said "machine learning" meant "deep learning models" no not at all.. DeepLearning

> seen the term "machine learning" used without criticism yes > would have said "machine learning" meant "deep learning models" no not at all.. DeepLearning has gotten serious technical press since about 2015 when certain competitions yielded better-than-average-human performance. DL is also closely coupled to the business model of massive cloud providers who handle streams of digital media. Yet ML stats continue to reliably predict eighty-percent plus well, on lots of kinds of problems. > it seemed to mean "computational multivariate discrimination and classification" no, classification has always been on of two main uses for ML, the other being regression-style prediction of real values. > believe "machine learning" is a term that could be removed from use no, stats are useful and continue to be useful. It is AI that is the really wonky term, to my ear. Please consider that there is a lot of difference between academic statistical methods, and technical press product hype. You may be suggesting a change in media coverage jargon, but you know, good luck with that..