> I don’t think you understand what you’re saying. “A linear combination of non-linear features” is not what people mean when they talk about linear regression.

> I don’t think you understand what you’re saying. “A linear combination of non-linear features” is not what people mean when they talk about linear regression. According to who? Did you watch the talk I linked? Because in that video, NeurIPS gave their test of time award to a paper where they generated nonlinear features and used those to train a linear classifier. I guess the committee at NeurIPS also didn't understand what they are saying? > And even if they were, a neural network will do a much better job of generating the non-linear features than you will be hand. So again, it’s logically obvious that a neural network will be capable of performing better than simple linear regression. Again, logically obvious but often empirically false.