But if I hadn't read Friedman's writing from 2002-2006, then I wouldn't know how terribly wrong he has been, and I would be too credulous about his claims.
I think this is a false premise: if you'd been reading Friedman's writing over that period with any attention to his subject matter and the claims he makes about it, then you would know how terribly wrong he has been. That's the only way anyone could know that. If you are reading him, and plan to read EY's writing, with no attention to their subject matter and the claims they make, then of what use would a reliability check be?
Just read his posts, look some of the stuff up on your own, and decide for yourself if they make sense. That's the best anyone can do. It would be a waste of EY's time, and/or yours, to go through a list of predictions.
plenty of people have written reams of stuff that's not obviously wrong. You shouldn't have to read all the works of Freud or L Ron Hubbard to be able to get information on their reliability. You shouldn't be forced to read every work on the Luminiferous Ether and deduce what's wrong with it yourself.
I blew through all of MoR in about 48 hours, and in an attempt to learn more about the science and philosophy that Harry espouses, I've been reading the sequences and Eliezer's posts on Less Wrong. Eliezer has written extensively about AI, rationality, quantum physics, singularity research, etc. I have a question: how correct has he been? Has his interpretation of quantum physics predicted any subsequently-observed phenomena? Has his understanding of cognitive science and technology allowed him to successfully anticipate the progress of AI research, or has he made any significant advances himself? Is he on the record predicting anything, either right or wrong?
Why is this important: when I read something written by Paul Krugman, I know that he has a Nobel Prize in economics, and I know that he has the best track record of any top pundit in the US in terms of making accurate predictions. Meanwhile, I know that Thomas Friedman is an idiot. Based on this track record, I believe things written by Krugman much more than I believe things written by Friedman. But if I hadn't read Friedman's writing from 2002-2006, then I wouldn't know how terribly wrong he has been, and I would be too credulous about his claims.
Similarly, reading Mike Darwin's predictions about the future of medicine was very enlightening. He was wrong about nearly everything. So now I know to distrust claims that he makes about the pace or extent of subsequent medical research.
Has Eliezer offered anything falsifiable, or put his reputation on the line in any way? "If X and Y don't happen by Z, then I have vastly overestimated the pace of AI research, or I don't understand quantum physics as well as I think I do," etc etc.