Well, maybe I got the wrong impression but after reading the (very accessible) Yolo V3 paper [1], it seems to me that even the experts do little real math and lots of guesswork, kicking a model until it starts giving results.
What is dangerous is reading a 30 minute blog post and getting the illusion of having some kind of understanding, when in reality it can take years to develop that. It's like cloning the postgres Github repository, compiling it, running a few queries, and then saying you've built databases and being hired to become the "database expert" at some company, spreading wrong knowledge left and right.
That's why the popularization of these quick immediate reward tutorials is dangerous. It takes time and effort to become knowledgable at something. Of course, many people are smart enough to know that these tutorials (or cloning the postgres repo) is just the first step on a longer learning journey, and in that case it's totally fine, but there are also many people who start thinking they are experts ready to work on research or production models after going through such things, not being aware of the many things they don't know [0]
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Du...
This sort of "inside information" is immensely valuable for society, especially in a world consumed with PR.
Whenever people talk about making the FDA less strict I get shivers down my spine. Was the snake oil salesmen really a better medical institution?
Machine Learning is a rich and varied field. Like most applied sciences, there is a spectrum from the heavily applied to the heavily theoretical, to some which try to span both sides of the spectrum at the same time (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04932).
All in all, not a great paper to prove your point imo.