616 karma · joined May 26, 2011
Yes, that is entirely true. There is no magic. Even if we don't understand some parts yet. There is no magic.
EDIT: What I meant is that it is not a reliable indicator for identifying technology leaders.
I did not say that. I think I said purpose and meaning need to be grounded in facts / science and should not be derived from belief systems based on "revelation" and other collective delusions.
Human brains also use anything the human can see, feel, hear for training. And what you produce in terms of creative outcome is a result of your experiences. But you don't owe anyone anything for training your human brain -- even if you use your brain to sell paintings, music etc.
You don't need the math in the beginning to train a model and get first results. Later, you will need the math and Jeremy clearly knows the math.
He gives a great example: In sports, you don't start with learning about physiology and train individual muscles etc. (I paraphrase), you start playing basketball or baseball or soccer, and understand the overall game. And if you like it, you can then become better and better and get deeper and deeper.
It's not helpful to start with linear algebra if - what motivated you - was the application of ML. We lose people who could have otherwise become experts later.
Can you explain this last sentence (which I understand to be insulting and without basis): > Howard is great with one problem: he kinda hates math. It might also seem that he ends up promoting anti-intellectualism.