|
|
|
|
|
by Mathnerd314
2470 days ago
|
|
Yes, it's a very thought-provoking article. I'm sure there are many competitions on Kaggle that were won due to the testing/training splits or other incidental choices rather than better machine learning. But I don't think it's fair to complain about $30,000 prizes being awarded to first rather than second place in a specific competition without doing at least a little checking of whether that was actually the case. And the article kind of reads like cynicism that all machine learning is a waste, and all the algorithms are just producing random numbers that randomly happen to be right some of the time and win the competition by random chance. |
|
I've fallen victim of getting a Twitter bump, and assuming that people know I'm not anti-ML.
The blog post is meant to be educational, not argumentative. Since it has got wider exposure I'll do a follow up to clarify my position on imagenet.