>I don't have to know exactly how logic gates work to program in JS and make a difference.

I don't regard time spent in University to learn how logical gates work and many other useful things, as a loss of time. And, as a web developer/architect (after many other industries I worked in), I typically make more money than peers who don't. And knowing how things work, helped me immensely in my career. Not everything is solvable by looking on Stack Overflow.

It depends on what professional level you are content with.

Learning was not only motivated by money - for me- I was genuinely curious about computers and software since I was a kid.

> I don't regard time spent in University to learn how logical gates work and many other useful things, as a loss of time.

It’s unquestionably a loss of time, the only question is whether it’s an optimal use of time. This depends on your goals. For most software engineers looking to use ML, starting with existing frameworks and knowledge and drilling down as necessary is the most prudent method.

We all have to make sacrifices in what we learn. Even for yourself, the topics you chose to learn about implicitly left out other parallel topics you didn’t learn about. And you also didn’t learn everything from the least abstracted, most fundamental level. We need to choose the appropriate level of abstraction for the problem at hand, which will depend on each person’s goals.

> I don't have to know exactly how logic gates work to program in JS and make a difference.

Thats a stupid analogy to the above discussion. A better analogy would be trying to program in JS without understanding for loops and basic programmation concepts.

Thats typically what I observe with younger folks jumping into neural nets directly. They have a very shallow understanding of anything and survive with youtube tutorials.

Most of what was listed above aren't the fundamentals which would help to properly understand what's happening with neural networks but rather completely different branches of machine learning that have little in common with neural networks. If they learn SVM, naive Bayes, and gradient boosting, then their knowledge will definitely be broader but just as shallow; using your analogy, it's not like trying to program in JS without understanding for loops but rather like trying to program in JS without understanding C, COBOL and Haskell.

I'm all for learning the fundamentals properly - but those fundamentals are going to be completely things, things like core principles of statistics (limitations of correlation, confounders, bias/variance, etc), the relevant parts of calculus and linear algebra that matter for understanding optimization, the best practices for management of data, experiments and measurement to not cheat yourself, etc - not the checklist of many different, parallel methods of machine learning like decision trees or reinforcement learning, which are both useful and interesting, but not related or required to properly apply e.g. transformer-based large language models for your task.

There’s a reason people start with YouTube tutorials (which, let’s face it, are responsible for many of us passing undergrad CS classes). They give a broad, approachable explanation of the topic.

> without understanding for loops and basic programming concepts

Depending on what you mean by “understand” I would guess most software engineers don’t “understand” for loops either. For loops are an abstraction built on the CPU instruction set provided by each programming language. We use them with the knowledge of how they behave, which is the correct level of abstraction nearly 100% of the time.

And in CS undergrads, we don’t throw people into a course on assembly first. First they learn something like Java or Python, and only later dig deeper into more fundamental concepts. That’s not an accident.