3 ms·
Interesting! I’ll have to look over it when I have more time. From a quick glance, it looks like it covers much of the same material as this text [1]. I wonder
by scythmic_waves 3y ago
Interesting! I’ll have to look over it when I have more time.
From a quick glance, it looks like it covers much of the same material as this text [1]. I wonder how they compare.
[1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/understanding-machine-learning/3059695661405D25673058E43C8BE2A6 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/understanding-machine-l...
- throwaway81523 3y agoA 2014 book on machine learning sounds quaint and historical.
- nerdponx 3y agoIt depends on the particular subtopics it covers. Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective is from 2012 and it's still a great resource, although Murphy's newer book will certainly cover more up-to-date material.
- dawnofdusk 3y agoDepends on what you want from a (text)book. In my mind books should be authoritative, they should include things that have had some thought put into them and are fairly well studied/verified. Modern advances in deep learning/ML are exciting but are very often not this. I would not a read a book which is just some recent hype papers from NeurIPS/ICML stapled together.