I like the diagram where it shows the improvement from "human" to "Google" and labels it as "probably overfitting". Not only does it look like the person is dra

I like the diagram where it shows the improvement from "human" to "Google" and labels it as "probably overfitting". Not only does it look like the person is drawing an extra hurricane bubble to prove a point in a presidential style, but it's complete nonsense. The earlier example says that the difference between winners in an arbitrarily picked Kaggle competition was "0.0014". Sure, I agree, seems small. But this random diagram about image classification shows that the Google model "the improvement year on year slows (the effect size decreases)". But that's not even true. The effect is exponential! 2011->2012: 38.6% "Reliable Improvement" 2014->2015: 34.9% "Probably Overfitting" Is this really the thoughts of someone well versed in statistics? I get the feeling they are just upset they lost at a competition and decided instead to rant about it (as you can see from the aggressive use of memes). This is not a well thought out argument against ML competitions, but you might be fooled into thinking it was because it contains just enough discussion of statistics that you might not notice it doesn't hold up.