"Hobbyists beat professionals of [x] in [x]" No they don't. ----- Look, I know we can go down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a good epistemology, how

"Hobbyists beat professionals of [x] in [x]" No they don't. ----- Look, I know we can go down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a good epistemology, how these notions are correct only some of the time, or how the metrics can be wrong. Here's a simple rule of thumb: if the result is completely counterintuitive in basic scenarios, then it's probably not true. Yes, yes, of course, the new response is "but wait quantum physics is utterly unintuitive, yet it is correct! So is chemistry! etc, etc" but look both you and I know that this is beside the point. Our simple and obvious priors are much more useful than we think, and they are right a lot more of the time than any of us want to give them credit for. Surely, there will be times when it's flat-out wrong, but those times are very few and far in between. Reading the paper, this certainly looks like the basic knee-jerk "No" is right by most useful metrics.