Ooh thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that before, going to read that tonight.

It's worth noting that there are domains where there are no experts

If I were to write a follow-up talking more about this expert-novice divide, I'd focus on defining expert/novice not based on their absolute level of knowledge/experience in the field, but relative to some specific person. E.g. someone might be an expert in AI safety compared to their grandma, but a novice in AIS compared to Yudkowski.

I think defining experts/novices as relative labels is more informative than saying there are domains where there are no experts. I agree that there are domains where everyone has barely an elementary understanding of the field, but within that narrow range of expertise I think it's still useful to have a term for those at the upper end of the range compared to those at the lower end (although this is mostly semantics).
 

A class of people who thinks of themselves as experts but doesn't really have a clue is the most dangerous when it comes to trapping themselves in traps of their own making.

I wouldn't define these people as experts. 100% agree that they're the most dangerous, especially if they've learnt to disguise themselves as experts without actually having the required expertise. In the essay I mostly ignored people who are dishonest and try to disguise themselves as experts/novices when they're not. Maybe that's a post for another time.

On second reading, you might be referring to people who honestly believe themselves to be experts but actually have no clue what's going on? That's something I didn't consider. Again I agree that they're dangerous. It feels like the sort of thing LessWrong would have written about before? I'm curious about how one could discover that you're in this category of honestly-but-fake experts.