4 ms·
That's correct on two fronts. First, I put "false" in quotes everywhere for a reason: I'm talking about the sort of thing that people would say is false, not wh
by justinpombrio 2y ago
That's correct on two fronts. First, I put "false" in quotes everywhere for a reason: I'm talking about the sort of thing that people would say is false, not what's actually false. And second, yes, I'm merely claiming that it's in theory learnable (in contrast to the OP's claim), not that it will necessarily be learned.
- RandomLensman 2y agoAm not sure the second part is always true: there might be situations where statistical approaches could be made kind of "infinitely" accurate as far as data is concerned but still represent a complete misunderstanding of the actual situation (aka truth), e.g., layering epicycles on epicycles in a geocentric model of the solar systems. Some data might support a statistical approach other might not even though it might not contain misrepresentations as such.