This is just the base rate, not the final prediction. Your actual prediction can incorporate any information you want, but the base rate gives you a starting point and a sanity check.
Also, as the article notes, scholars like Tetlock have studied the the track record of scholars and experts and found them to be less accurate than this type of approach.
No, Tetlock et all have found very large crowds to outperform smaller groups of experts. This however is an article about small groups of non experts competing against each other. It’s not even blending the predictions across teams.
It’s a literary sleight of hand but useful to note as it undermines the entire premise of the article. That’s because these predictions are bunk because these techniques don’t work with the stock market which uses far more rigorous statistical methods for pricing (which happened 60s-90s with the rise of quants).
That's a good point. Again, even as a base rate I wonder if it's any good as it seems extremely hand wavy and arbitrary, but I can see how it being part of a multi-source approach can help.
Also, as the article notes, scholars like Tetlock have studied the the track record of scholars and experts and found them to be less accurate than this type of approach.