2 ms·
Most ML is disjoint from the current NN trends, IMO. Compare Bishop's PRML to his Deep Learning textbook. First couple chapters are copy+paste preliminaries (pr
by m11a 2y ago
Most ML is disjoint from the current NN trends, IMO. Compare Bishop's PRML to his Deep Learning textbook. First couple chapters are copy+paste preliminaries (probability, statistics, Gaussians, other maths background), and then they completely diverge. I'm not sure how useful classical ML is for understanding NNs.
- xmprt 2y agoThat's fair. My understanding is that NN and ML are similar insofar as they are both about minimizing a loss value (like negative log likelihood). And then the methods of doing that are very different and once you get even more advanced, NN concepts feel like a completely different universe.