4 ms·

I was disappointed in that line. They could’ve mentioned it used a random forest, which is much more informative. “ML is a type of AI” isn’t even a cocktail par

I was disappointed in that line. They could’ve mentioned it used a random forest, which is much more informative. “ML is a type of AI” isn’t even a cocktail party understanding of the topic.

textlapse 2y ago
For a layperson, this is an accessible and directionally correct definition. For the HN audience, of course this is 'technically incorrect'. The article was written for the (larger) general public. I am also glad they didn't squeeze in a word salad of LLMs and quantum technology and instead stuck to 'it's just standard ML'.
- gowld 2y ago
  The only informational dividable from the statement is "we used a computer to analyze data".