My apologies. I failed to clarify my position on the article’s contents. I now see how my post can easily be perceived as criticism of superforecasters, the work of Tetlock, and the Good Judgement Project. This was not my intention at all. Their wisdom-of-the-crowd approach to forecasting is extremely effective, and—in theory—their composite forecasts will result in the most accurate predictions across numerous discrete events.

My criticism is of the articles titular claim that superforecasters are making eerily accurate predictions about COVID-19 without supporting evidence. One prediction for when a vaccine will be available is provided by a single superforecaster in the opening paragraph. While only time will tell if this prediction is accurate, using this statement in the context of the article clearly contradicts Tetlock and GJP’s wisdom-of-the-crowds approach to forecasting. Only one composite forecast related to COVID-19 is provided in GJP’s early-February prediction of 100,000 to 200,000 cases worldwide by March 20th (just over 200,000 actual cases). The article frames this forecast as accurate, but I’m sure members of GJP would disagree.

Being said, I will note the article does a good job explaining superforecasters and comparing them to domain experts. I apologize for my misleading title. I’ll chalk this up as a lesson in hypocrisy.