You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

IlyaShpitser comments on [QUESTION]: Academic social science and machine learning - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: VipulNaik 19 July 2014 03:13PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (17)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 21 July 2014 05:31:01PM *  4 points [-]

You should be asking why "statistics" and "machine learning" are different fields. It is a good question!

edit: To clarify, stats is a "service field" for a lot of empirical fields, so lots of them use stats methods and not ML methods. More comp. sci. aligned areas also use more ML e.g. computational bio. There's been a lot of cross fertilization lately, and stats and ML are converging, but the fact that there is "department level division" is supremely weird.


Neural networks are non-linear regression.


Arguably we often can't usefully interpret statistical models unless they correspond to causal ones! One of the historical differences between ML and stats is that the latter was always concerned about experiments and interpretability, and thus about causal matters, whereas the former more about prediction and fancy algorithms.

It is very weird to me ML is so little interested in causality.