3 ms·

Chemistry is a centuries old discipline, that people study undergrad a full four years before getting a PhD in the field of chemistry. ML is a, practically spe

Chemistry is a centuries old discipline, that people study undergrad a full four years before getting a PhD in the field of chemistry. ML is a, practically speaking, 15 year old field that PhDs often begin to study after a couple of AI courses in undergrade and a specific track in grad school (while they study other parts of CS as part of their early graduate CS work). There's just way less context in ML than Chemistry.

smaddox 4y ago
I don't think that's really true, but you don't need the full context in ML in order to apply it to your field of interest. Just like you don't need the full context in Physics to apply it to an engineering problem. Some of the most successful ML researchers have read several decades of research papers. It's not uncommon to see references to papers from the 70s or 90s. Edit: No doubt that the relevant parts of stats, random matrix theory, and ML is a newer field than Physics or Chemistry, though.
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
DL is a 15 year old field, ML is far older than that.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  That’s why I said practically speaking. And realistically I don’t think you can even generously consider anything prior to perceptrons.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    ML is so much more than DL / NNs. I recommend that you open a book like Bishop or ESL, the overwhelming majority of ML has been non DL going back to the 70s.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      Most of that I learned doing non-ML stats work. But regardless, my point was the history of it is far less than chemistry. Let’s say ML started at the turn of the 1990s to be generous. Still much younger than chemistry.
  - _delirium 4y ago
    > realistically I don’t think you can even generously consider anything prior to perceptrons I mean, sure, but for the practical reason that perceptrons (proposed 1943, implemented 1958) are about as old as digital computers, and ML as a field is tied up pretty strongly with the existence of computers.
    - kenjackson 4y ago
      I wasn’t comparing ML to digital computers though — but rather chemistry. Theory of computation and algorithms (bedrocks of CS) far predate digital computers.

smaddox 4y ago

I don't think that's really true, but you don't need the full context in ML in order to apply it to your field of interest. Just like you don't need the full context in Physics to apply it to an engineering problem. Some of the most successful ML researchers have read several decades of research papers. It's not uncommon to see references to papers from the 70s or 90s. Edit: No doubt that the relevant parts of stats, random matrix theory, and ML is a newer field than Physics or Chemistry, though.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

DL is a 15 year old field, ML is far older than that.

kenjackson 4y ago
That’s why I said practically speaking. And realistically I don’t think you can even generously consider anything prior to perceptrons.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  ML is so much more than DL / NNs. I recommend that you open a book like Bishop or ESL, the overwhelming majority of ML has been non DL going back to the 70s.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    Most of that I learned doing non-ML stats work. But regardless, my point was the history of it is far less than chemistry. Let’s say ML started at the turn of the 1990s to be generous. Still much younger than chemistry.
- _delirium 4y ago
  > realistically I don’t think you can even generously consider anything prior to perceptrons I mean, sure, but for the practical reason that perceptrons (proposed 1943, implemented 1958) are about as old as digital computers, and ML as a field is tied up pretty strongly with the existence of computers.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    I wasn’t comparing ML to digital computers though — but rather chemistry. Theory of computation and algorithms (bedrocks of CS) far predate digital computers.