I concur. ML isn't programming per se; it is experimental problem-solving with a particular dataset and algorithm. Your result may/not work well, may/not generalise, and will almost undoubtedly not contribute anything new to any discipline, even to ML. When all ML work is done we'll have great pattern recognizers but nothing remotely akin to thought. And we won't understand how they work or the best way to build the next one. It isn't AI, although it is a part of AI, just as the visual system is part of AI.
I was reading Domingos' "The Master Algorithm" several days ago and a mathematician inquired about the book. He knew a group of ML developers. His opinion was that "ML doesn't look very interesting: all you do is play with the parameters, turn the knobs, and/or change the model until something works. There's no real progress there; nothing substantial."
Rather than sending a batallion of bright developers into the ML swamp where they will largely be frustrated, learn little and contribute less, I'd be tempted to guide them into other fields.
I was reading Domingos' "The Master Algorithm" several days ago and a mathematician inquired about the book. He knew a group of ML developers. His opinion was that "ML doesn't look very interesting: all you do is play with the parameters, turn the knobs, and/or change the model until something works. There's no real progress there; nothing substantial."
Rather than sending a batallion of bright developers into the ML swamp where they will largely be frustrated, learn little and contribute less, I'd be tempted to guide them into other fields.