Re:You might not need machine learning
by tgv on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @11:23AM
(#25199853)
There were no machines in the sense of ML in 1740.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:You might not need machine learning
by mlthoughts2018 on Saturday November 28, 2020 @03:14PM
(#25240153)
This is very false. Least squares regression fitting, Chebychev polynomial approximation, and maximum likelihhod estimators all existed at the time and those are all classic examples of standard machine learning. The term “machine learning” essentially encompasses any type of algorithm that expresses inductive statistical reasoning. Even just elementary school descriptive statistics is machine learning. “Machine learning” is a super old subfield of applied mathematics. The fact that the terminology “machine learning” didn’t exist until things like perceptron and SVMs came along is utterly irrelevant semantic hairsplitting.
Re:You might not need machine learning
by disgruntledphd2 on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @02:41PM
(#25202209)
But ML is essentially just function approximation, and that definitely existed back then.
I know this is super pedantic, but it's important to remember the roots of things, and that even things which appear new have precursors that are much older than a lot of people realise.