This is a great post. I’ve already been thinking about the semi-tradeoff / semi-false dichotomy between empiricism and theorizing. But I feel like this post crystallized some new thoughts in this area.
For one thing, the point that I want to get to a theory when I expect the domain to change substantially (but I can more safely use a un-grounded understanding that I iteratively gradient descent-ed to, when the domain is stable) is important, and I hadn’t articulated it before. (Of course, I basically always want to get a gearsy model out of my black box model, because the gearsy model is likely to have insights that generalize in some way, but sometimes it isn’t worth the effort.)
I also feel like I got some more clarity about why I care about learning math.
This is a great post. I’ve already been thinking about the semi-tradeoff / semi-false dichotomy between empiricism and theorizing. But I feel like this post crystallized some new thoughts in this area.
For one thing, the point that I want to get to a theory when I expect the domain to change substantially (but I can more safely use a un-grounded understanding that I iteratively gradient descent-ed to, when the domain is stable) is important, and I hadn’t articulated it before. (Of course, I basically always want to get a gearsy model out of my black box model, because the gearsy model is likely to have insights that generalize in some way, but sometimes it isn’t worth the effort.)
I also feel like I got some more clarity about why I care about learning math.
Tho
Tho?