I was watching a video from code emporium, here he describes Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) as to finding weights which maximizes the probability of seeing the training data (D = [X,Y])
$\theta^{MLE} =argmax \{ P(Y|X;\theta) \}$
Let's consider our training data is XOR data
Input Output
A B
0 0 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0
and say this data's real probability distribuiton is the blue one $P(Y|X)$ and our current model's (randomly initialized weights) probability disbribution is the red one $P(Y|X;\theta_{Random})$
Then the aim of Maximum Likelihood Estimation is to push the weights from randomly initialitzed weights to the real weights which approximately "describes" our real data distribution.
MLE = $ \{ P(Y|X;\theta_{Random})\rightarrow P(Y|X;\theta_{Real})\approx P(Y|X)\}$
Question 1: Is my thinking right; Is this the correct approach to describe MLE?
In gradient descent, to train a model we have to minimize a cost function but in MLE we are maximizing it. To solve this in here he talks about Negative Log Likelihood which is a negative added to the log converted MLE?
Question 2: How is adding a negative to log converted MLE maximises MLE?
My intiution tells me instead of learning the real distribution $P(Y|X;\theta_{Real})$ this should have pushed away the weights to some random distribution?