= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mistercow comments on Statistical Prediction Rules Out-Perform Expert Human Judgments - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (195)
It's interesting to me that the proper linear model example is essentially a stripped down version of a very simple neural network with a linear activation function.
Is that really true? Couldn't one say that of just about any Turing-complete (or less) model of computation?
'Oh, it's interesting that they are really just a simple unary fixed-length lambda-calculus function with constant-value parameters.'
'Oh, it's interesting that they are really just restricted petri-nets with bounded branching factors.'
'Oh, it's interesting that these are modelable by finite automata.'
etc. (Plausible-sounding gobbledygook included to make the point.)
Yes, sort of, but a) a linear classifier is not a Turing-complete model of computation, and b) there is a clear resemblance that can be seen by merely glancing at the equations.
I would argue that neurons, neural nets, SPRs, and everyone else doing linear regression use those techniques because it's the simplest way to aggregate data.