India/Pakistan military clashes? Botmaster Jeremy Lichtman’s forecast, May 26, 2025

Will ACLED report any conflict fatalities by India against Pakistan or vice versa between May 13 and the end of May?

Jeremy’s Multi-AI Oracle bot predicts 30%. Below, a summary of how it arrived at this result.

Obtaining outside data.
Checking internet sources, using keywords: ACLED India Pakistan conflict May 2023
News from various sources:

I
News from various sources:
I cannot actually visit and browse URLs to provide summaries of their content. However, I can analyze the headlines, snippets, and metadata visible in the HTML markup you’ve provided to give you an overview of what these articles appear to cover.

Based on the markup, these articles appear to be reporting on a recent India-Pakistan conflict that occurred in May 2025 (though some dates seem inconsistent). The most recent and significant developments include:

**Recent Conflict and Ceasefire**: The articles indicate there was a significant escalation between India and Pakistan around early May 2025, with military actions including what India described as strikes against targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This led to heightened fears of broader military conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors. However, a US-brokered ceasefire was subsequently negotiated, with the Trump administration taking credit for the diplomatic intervention.

**Economic and Strategic Impact**: The conflict had immediate economic consequences, with Reuters reporting that the Indian rupee experienced its worst day in over two years due to the tensions. Multiple sources suggest this latest crisis is different from previous India-Pakistan conflicts, with The Atlantic noting that both countries are “fueling each other’s extremism without an off-ramp in sight.” Analysts warn that while a ceasefire has been achieved, it doesn’t address the fundamental grievances driving the decades-long dispute, particularly over Kashmir.

**Misinformation Concerns**: Reuters also published a fact-check revealing that a 2023 video of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza was being falsely circulated online as showing Indian strikes on Pakistan, highlighting how misinformation spreads during times of heightened tensions between the two nations.

Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“The recent newsfeed reports on an escalation between India and Pakistan in May 2025, marked by military actions across the border, including strikes by India in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. A ceasefire was brokered by the United States, with the Trump administration claiming credit for the intervention. This conflict has had significant economic implications, such as a sharp decline in the Indian rupee, and highlights enduring tensions, with analysts noting an absence of resolution to long-standing issues, particularly concerning Kashmir. Additionally, misinformation has been a concern, with a 2023 video from Gaza being inaccurately shared as footage of the current conflict, illustrating the challenge of verifying information during such events. The situation remains complex, and while immediate hostilities have been halted, fundamental grievances persist.”

Fact-checking news summary:

1. **Fact**: There was an escalation between India and Pakistan in May 2025, marked by military actions across the border.
– **Check**: As this is a hypothetical future scenario, we cannot verify the fact externally.
– **Internal Consistency**: The summary provides consistent details that align with this statement.
– **Importance**: Critical – This fact is directly related to the original question about conflict fatalities.
– **Relevance**: True – Relevant to the outcome; potential conflict fatalities would arise from such actions.

2. **Fact**: There were strikes by India in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
– **Check**: As this is a future event according to the document, it cannot be verified for accuracy.
– **Internal Consistency**: Consistent with the described conflict escalation.
– **Importance**: Important – Directly relates to military actions that could result in fatalities.
– **Relevance**: True – Relevant to determining potential fatalities.

3. **Fact**: A ceasefire was brokered by the United States, with the Trump administration claiming credit for the intervention.
– **Check**: Internally consistent within the hypothetical future scenario. The reference to the Trump administration in 2025 appears outdated; Donald Trump was not the sitting U.S. president in 2025.
– **Internal Consistency**: Partially inconsistent (regarding the administration in 2025).
– **Importance**: Important – Affects ongoing hostilities and fatalities, but Trump involvement seems inaccurate.
– **Relevance**: True – Ceasefire relevance to the outcome is pertinent.

4. **Fact**: The conflict led to significant economic implications, including a sharp decline in the Indian rupee.
– **Check**: Consistent within the context, but cannot verify as it’s a future scenario.
– **Internal Consistency**: Consistent with conflict impacts.
– **Importance**: Less important – Economic implications are secondary to fatality considerations.
– **Relevance**: True – Economic impacts are contextually relevant to broader consequences.

5. **Fact**: There are enduring tensions between India and Pakistan, with unresolved issues, particularly concerning Kashmir.
– **Check**: True – Historically consistent and accurate regarding ongoing India-Pakistan issues.
– **Internal Consistency**: Fully consistent.
– **Importance**: Important – Contextualizes the background causes for conflict severity but does not directly determine fatalities.
– **Relevance**: True – Helps understand potential motivations and future tensions.

6. **Fact**: A 2023 video from Gaza was inaccurately shared as footage of the current conflict, illustrating misinformation challenges.
– **Check**: True with known challenges in media veracity during conflicts.
– **Internal Consistency**: Consistent within the narrative on misinformation.
– **Importance**: Less important – Does not impact the assessment of fatalities or conflict scale directly.
– **Relevance**: True – Acknowledges challenges in reporting, indirectly relevant.

In summary, the majority of the facts are directly relevant to assessing the potential for ACLED to report conflict fatalities between India and Pakistan during the specified timeframe. The mention of the Trump administration in 2025 is a notable inconsistency if interpreted strictly timeline-wise.

Fact-checked summary:
Between May 13 and the end of May, there were enduring tensions and possible military actions between India and Pakistan, particularly concerning Kashmir. Although specific conflict incidents or fatalities during this period remain speculative due to this being a hypothetical future scenario, historical context suggests unresolved issues have consistently led to tension. The factual accuracy of these statements enhances understanding of potential motivations for conflict, with enduring tensions being both historically true and critical to assessing future conflict scenarios. Additionally, misinformation challenges, while not directly indicating fatalities, highlight reporting difficulties during conflicts and are contextually relevant to how information might be perceived or misinterpreted.

OpenAI gives a base rate of 10%
The question difficulty is rated 7 (0 to 10)
Historical weighted factors include:
Frequent border skirmishes, 0.4
Past significant military conflicts, 0.3
Ceasefire agreements, 0.2
Diplomatic dialogues, 0.1
A Bayesian calculation could be performed as follows:
To calculate the Bayesian probability, we use the weighted influence of historical factors and adjust for current tensions. Begin with a prior probability of 0.1 from the base rate. Factor in recent tensions and misinformation challenges. Estimated impact increases the likelihood by 50%, resulting in 0.15 probability.
Bayesian base rate: 15%
Sufficient news to provide a good forecast? 1 (0 or 1)
News is relevant, topical and unbiased? 1 (0 or 1)
Question classification: scenario_based_forecast
Expected time (days) until question close: 100

The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate was established by analyzing similar past tensions and military conflicts between India and Pakistan. Historically, while tensions frequently rise, significant military confrontations are less common due to international diplomatic pressures.

Ideally, the news feed would contain the following sorts of information for a better forecast:
Access to classified or internal government communications and intelligence assessments regarding military movements or diplomatic dispatches could significantly enhance forecast accuracy.

Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
New or heightened geopolitical interests from external nations, a sudden severe incident, or a collapse in current diplomatic relations could rapidly increase the likelihood of conflict.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– An escalation in military conflict between India and Pakistan. – Significant violation of the ceasefire agreements. – Substantial fatalities occurring as a result of the conflict. – Breakdown in diplomatic dialogue between the two nations.

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.95 – confidence: 8
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.3 – confidence: 5
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.2 – confidence: 5
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.3
Base rate: 0.1 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.33
MAPD: 0.5
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.23
Reverse Mellers: 0.37
Theory of Mind: 0.3 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.12
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Explanations of the above statistical measures here —>

Model value: 30%
The predictions revolve around several factors, primarily focusing on the enduring tensions between India and Pakistan, especially in the Kashmir region. While historically, the base rate for significant military conflicts between the two nations is low due to diplomatic pressures and high stakes, current dynamics may suggest an elevated risk. The period under consideration is short, and while rumors of potential military actions exist, they remain speculative with potential misinformation challenges. Additionally, the distinction between tensions and actual fatalities is crucial, with the possibility of underreported or delayed reporting by ACLED. The presence of international diplomatic interventions and historical tendencies towards de-escalation are highlighted as reasons against the likelihood of conflict fatalities, though unforeseen geopolitical developments could alter the situation.

Runtime: 79 seconds.