2 ms·
That might be true for some very general (or common) problems (though I have doubts about that as well), but it can't possibly be true for a specialized problem
by Thrymr 14y ago
That might be true for some very general (or common) problems (though I have doubts about that as well), but it can't possibly be true for a specialized problem such as the one described. How do you train a model if you don't understand the problem? You can't just say "unsupervised learning" and expect your algorithm to come up with a full understanding of the physics involved.
(And no, I have not edited my comment.)
- marshallp 14y agoI agree with you, I just feel like that is basically the understanding of variables (names of concepts) and not maths. So, you need to understand what measurements to take/can be taken, and then set up that system and feed it to the black box machine learner. Now, there still need to be some people who understand how things work in detail, but this is much smaller than what is being taught (most k12 do not need to know maths or physics or chemistry etc). They do need practice in abstract thinkng and this would be much better done with programming (a playful, creative, logical, and useful activity).