People’s responses to Harari remind me very much of Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia[0]. Everyone seems to be impressed by his work until they get to their area of specialism, which is the only area they think he falls down in. I’ve had a number of conversations like this with people from different fields, all of whom think his analysis in their area was significantly flawed. It feels like he writes stuff that’s very plausible for a lay audience, but subject it to any intellectual rigour from someone who knows their stuff and it crumbles.
I find this to be the case with most pop-science books; the author's intention is to leave the reader with a feeling of having learned something rather than providing a full overview of the field, which may be too complex for the situation anyway. I often compare it to my response when non-CS people ask me "what I do."
Do you have some specific examples the people you spoke to frequently criticize regarding Harari?
No specific examples I'm afraid (what they said put me off reading him entirely so I don't have any personal examples either - too many other books I want to read!), although the two people who mentioned it to me recently were a neuroscientist and an economist with a keen interest evolutionary biology.
I do wonder about the value of pop science. It feels like it's almost always oversimplified to the point of being misleading. I have a background in psychology / neuroscience and find it difficult to read any pop neuroscience without grinding my teeth.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmn...