[comstock]

The article doesn’t make that statement. The article doesn’t provide data to support any statements (it’s a pop science piece).

The original blog:

https://research.googleblog.com/2016/09/a-neural-network-for...

Is better suggests deep learning resulted in maybe 10% improvement. Isn’t as good as human in all cases.

[brucephillips]

Ah I misread "as good" as "better". It's still an epsilon difference, though. And the article lists other applications that have had "step wise" improvements, which is the opposite of incremental of course.

Also, you didn't answer the question.