Aww how romantic that may sound. But just a reminder: “Intelligence is what people with less intelligence than I have, don’t have”. Somewhat less r of romance, huh. Maybe a bit more R of R, then. But still valid.
Did you notice, by the way, that R was ‘invented’ (conceived – by nerds, yeah right) in 1992 already? What took it so long?
On the more serious side; the boundary between [assuming no overlap then, by language] statistics and ML processing (either plain or NN-like), where is it? What is the character of the divide ..? There certainly is one, and one better consider it when trying to move from e.g., predictive analytics to true continuous-learning systems. My guess: When things get complex, one is over the boundary already. Linear separability in n dimensions is still on the stats side probably.
Where this is going I have no idea never mind let’s return. To Kansas if possible. Or to Intelligenceland, also good. Is ‘intelligence’ like ‘reality for physicists’? Better go study Gadamer. For the rest of you, just quit the discussion and be no less wise or happy or effective. The latter should soothe.
Plus:
[Someone needed to compensate …; Riga]