But sure you could always define efficiency in an unattainable way by saying no matter how much you beat the market your streak could end down the line and the limited sample size means it doesn't prove anything.
And to me that's what efficient markets are. This unfalsifiable word game you can play where as long as the definition is flexible enough, you get to say the sentence "markets are efficient".
I think this question is hard to comprehend when you blow it up to this massive scale. Heres a simpler (and I claim) equivalent problem.
Imagine you're in a room with a friend. You're both tasked with estimating the price of a company. You both read through the companies 10Ks and whatever other information you can dig up. You read a bit more carefully than your friend, and detect an issue in the company's finances. Now you have alpha, and can develop a better estimate.
The market is this same scenario, but there are millions of folks playing the same game. That means its harder to find that undiscovered blip of insight, but that doesn't mean it doesn't lie in wait for the diligent. Just as there are still original thoughts, there are still original insights, and possessing them means, for a moment, you can beat the market.
Sure but the exception proves the rule. We don't have a whole generation of Warren Buffets, we only have one.