Updates from BestWorld’s AI Botmaster Jeremy Lichtman of Dec. 10, 2024

What is the probability of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025?

Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 60%, greatly up from 15% yesterday. 

Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“Recent reports on the potential merger between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel indicate ongoing efforts by Nippon Steel to secure support from American workers and political figures for its acquisition bid. The Japanese company has pledged significant investments and detailed spending plans of $1.4 billion to address U.S. concerns, with further communication established with U.S. Steel workers’ union leaders. Meanwhile, GLJ Research has upgraded its outlook on the deal, suggesting increased chances for presidential approval, highlighting potential positive market impacts. However, the merger faces political challenges, notably from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who has strongly opposed the $14 billion acquisition, citing issues over job security and foreign ownership. The situation remains dynamic as federal review processes, such as CFIUS, continue to assess the implications of the proposed deal.”

Fact-checking news summary: Based on the summary provided, here is a list of specific facts, along with checks on their correctness and relevance to the original question about the probability of the merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025:

1. Fact: Nippon Steel is making ongoing efforts to secure support from American workers and political figures for its acquisition bid.
– Correctness: True. This is a plausible strategy for a foreign company seeking to acquire a significant U.S. company.
– Relevance: True. Gaining support is crucial for the merger’s approval process, directly affecting the likelihood of announcement.

2. Fact: Nippon Steel has pledged $1.4 billion in investments to address U.S. concerns.
– Correctness: True. Companies often pledge investments to alleviate concerns in international mergers.
– Relevance: True. Investment commitments can influence the approval process, impacting timing and likelihood of announcement.

3. Fact: Communication has been established with U.S. Steel workers’ union leaders.
– Correctness: True. Engaging with union leaders is standard practice in such mergers to address labor concerns.
– Relevance: True. Union support can be critical in influencing political and regulatory decisions, affecting the merger’s progress.

4. Fact: GLJ Research upgraded its outlook on the deal, suggesting increased chances for presidential approval.
– Correctness: True. Analysts frequently update their outlooks based on evolving circumstances.
– Relevance: True. An upgraded outlook can indicate improved chances of a timely announcement, as it could reflect a favorable environment for regulatory approval.

5. Fact: The merger faces opposition from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who is against the $14 billion acquisition.
– Correctness: False. There is no President-elect named Donald Trump as of the data cut-off up to October 2023. This suggests an error in the summary’s timeframe or narrative.
– Relevance: True. Opposition from a hypothetical or mistimed political figure would be relevant, as presidential disapproval can heavily delay or cancel a merger.

6. Fact: Federal review processes, such as CFIUS, are assessing the implications of the proposed deal.
– Correctness: True. CFIUS typically reviews foreign acquisitions for national security issues.
– Relevance: True. Federal review outcomes are pivotal in determining the probability and timing of the merger’s official announcement.

Overall, the primary inconsistencies arise from the mention of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, which does not align with the current political timeline. All other facts are consistent with typical merger processes and are relevant to the announcement timeline question.

Fact-checked summary: Nippon Steel is actively working to gain support from American workers and political figures for its acquisition bid of U.S. Steel, which is an essential strategy for moving forward with the merger. The company has pledged $1.4 billion in investments to address concerns related to the merger, which can play a significant role in influencing the approval process. Communication has also been established with U.S. Steel workers’ union leaders, a standard practice to address labor concerns and garner union support, which can be crucial in the merger’s progress. Additionally, an upgraded outlook from GLJ Research suggests improved chances for presidential approval, indicating a more favorable environment for regulatory approval. Federal review processes like CFIUS are assessing the implications of the proposed deal, and the outcomes of these reviews will be crucial in determining the probability and timing of the merger’s official announcement.

OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.4. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:

The base rate of 0.4 reflects the complexity and competitive nature of international company acquisitions in the United States. Historically, mergers involving foreign entities acquiring major U.S. companies can face significant regulatory and political hurdles. The pledges for investment, worker support, and political backing increase the likelihood somewhat, but regulatory approvals remain a challenge, especially given CFIUS’s involvement. Successful mergers in this sector with foreign companies occur less than 50% of the time due to these factors.

Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Divergent considerations include the possibility of increased geopolitical tensions that could influence U.S. regulatory bodies to act unfavorably towards foreign acquisitions. On the other hand, a shift towards a more global economic integration stance by the U.S. administration could increase the likelihood of approval. Additionally, any changes in leadership or policy outlooks at regulatory agencies could influence the outcome positively or negatively.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Nippon Steel must secure support from U.S. Steel workers and their union leaders, which is estimated to be likely.
– Nippon Steel must gain political backing from American political figures, which is assessed as moderately likely.
– Nippon Steel must address the $1.4 billion investment concerns, which is estimated to be highly likely.
– The CFIUS review must conclude without significant objections, which is uncertain but possible.
– The merger must receive regulatory approval from relevant U.S. agencies, which is assessed as uncertain.

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.65 – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.65 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 5)

Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.65
Base rate: 0.4 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.14
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.71
Reverse Mellers: 0.6
Theory of Mind: 0.3 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.03
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value : 0.6

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows: The prediction about the likelihood of Nippon Steel’s merger hinges on several key factors: the company’s proactive $1.4 billion investment commitment, efforts to gain support from U.S. Steel workers and union leaders, and the moderately positive political and regulatory outlook. However, these are tempered by significant uncertainties, especially around the CFIUS review and regulatory hurdles, which historically pose challenges for international acquisitions with a success rate below 50%. The prediction also considers the potential for geopolitical tensions and unexpected delays in approval processes, which could either invalidate or unfavorably influence the merger’s chances. Despite a reasonable timeframe and supportive strategies potentially boosting success rates above historical averages, multiple variables continue to introduce substantial risks to the merger’s approval.

Given the agreement of the Dock Workers to salary increases, both union and the port will return to the bargaining table on Jan. 15, 2025 to discuss automation and other issues, what’s the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.

Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 57%, still the same as last week.

Obtaining outside newsfeed.  Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“The potential for dockworker strikes in both the United States and Canada has raised concerns among retailers and port operators, with significant negotiations currently at a critical point. In the U.S., the National Retail Federation has urged the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) to resolve disputes centered around automation before the scheduled strike on January 15, 2025. The ILA argues that increased automation threatens jobs and national security, while the USMX believes leveraging technology is essential for operations. Similarly, in Canada, British Columbia’s dockworkers, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), have threatened a strike, pressing for a new agreement that addresses concerns about overtime and technological changes before it begins as early as next Monday. These developments highlight ongoing tensions between labor and management within the port industry globally, with automation a pivotal issue.”

Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, with a check on their correctness and relevance to the outcome:

1. Fact: The potential for dockworker strikes in the United States and Canada has raised concerns among retailers and port operators.
– Correctness: True. The summary accurately states that concerns have been raised.
– Relevance: True. Concerns about potential strikes are directly relevant to the probability of a strike occurring.

2. Fact: Significant negotiations are currently at a critical point.
– Correctness: True. The summary implies that negotiations are ongoing and important, which is consistent with the situation.
– Relevance: True. The state of negotiations is key to understanding the likelihood of a strike.

3. Fact: In the U.S., the National Retail Federation has urged the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) to resolve disputes before a scheduled strike on January 15, 2025.
– Correctness: False. The summary refers to a “scheduled strike,” but the original question indicates both parties will be returning to the bargaining table on January 15, 2025.
– Relevance: True. Efforts to resolve disputes are directly relevant to the likelihood of a strike.

4. Fact: The ILA argues that increased automation threatens jobs and national security.
– Correctness: True. The ILA’s position on automation threatening jobs and national security is plausible.
– Relevance: True. The ILA’s concerns about automation are relevant to negotiations and the potential for a strike.

5. Fact: The USMX believes leveraging technology is essential for operations.
– Correctness: True. This is a likely position for the USMX given current industry trends.
– Relevance: True. The USMX’s stance on automation affects the negotiations and potential for a strike.

6. Fact: In Canada, British Columbia’s dockworkers, represented by the ILWU, have threatened a strike.
– Correctness: True. The ILWU representing dockworkers in British Columbia threatening a strike is internally consistent.
– Relevance: False. Although relevant to the broader context of labor issues in the port industry, it is not directly relevant to the probability of a strike in the U.S. in Q1 2025.

7. Fact: The ILWU is pressing for a new agreement addressing overtime and technological changes.
– Correctness: True. It is plausible that the ILWU has these concerns.
– Relevance: False. Similar to the previous fact, it pertains to Canadian dockworkers, not U.S. dockworkers.

8. Fact: Canadian dockworkers’ strike may begin as early as next Monday.
– Correctness: True. This timing is consistent with the text but needs verification against real-time data.
– Relevance: False. It is specific to Canada and not the U.S.

9. Fact: Automation is a pivotal issue in ongoing tensions between labor and management globally in the port industry.
– Correctness: True. Automation is generally recognized as a significant issue in labor-management discussions worldwide.
– Relevance: True. As automation is partly the reason for tension, it’s relevant to the likelihood of a strike.

Fact-checked summary: The potential for dockworker strikes in the United States and Canada has raised concerns among retailers and port operators, highlighting the relevance of ongoing negotiations. As both union and port representatives are set to return to the bargaining table on January 15, 2025, these negotiations are at a critical point, making their outcome crucial in determining the probability of a strike. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) argues that increased automation threatens jobs and national security, while the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) believes leveraging technology is essential for operations. These differing stances on automation contribute to tensions in labor-management discussions globally, which are pivotal in evaluating the potential for a strike in Q1 2025.

OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.4. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:

The base rate was determined by examining the historical frequency of dockworker strikes following similar negotiation breakdowns and labor tensions over automation. Strikes do occur under these conditions, but they are not the most frequent outcome given that negotiations often lead to temporary resolutions or compromises. The ongoing concerns around automation and job security are major points of contention that could lead to a strike, raising the base probability from a more neutral baseline.

Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: External economic factors or interventions by the government could affect the resolution. For instance, significant political pressure or economic impacts might prompt expedited resolutions or government-mediated compromises, thereby lowering the likelihood of a strike. On the other hand, if public sentiment strongly supports the union’s position against automation, this might increase the chances of a strike as the union may gain additional negotiating power.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Failure to reach an agreement during the negotiations on January 15, 2025. (Moderately likely)
– Escalation of tensions over automation concerns not being adequately addressed. (Moderately likely)
– Decision by union leaders to initiate a strike action. (Somewhat likely)

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.65 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.6 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.45 – confidence: 5)

Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.6
Base rate: 0.4 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.08
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.64
Reverse Mellers: 0.57
Theory of Mind: 0.4 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.01
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.57

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows: Several factors contribute to the potential for a dockworker strike in Q1 2025, centering around the January 15, 2025 negotiations, where automation is a major point of contention between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port management. Historically, automation issues have led to increased tensions and the likelihood of labor actions. Despite strong bargaining power demonstrated in previous salary negotiations, the ILA’s opposition to automation, citing concerns over job and national security, fuels the probability of a strike. Public sentiment, government intervention, and external economic conditions might also influence the outcome, with potential for temporary resolutions or alternative forms of protest rather than an outright strike. The probability of a strike is further complicated by the historical base rate of dockworker strikes and the possibility of technological compromises or job protection guarantees being reached during negotiations.

How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?

Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today,
* less than 172: 20%
* between 172 and 205: 40%
* between 206 and 240: 30%
* more than 240: 10%

Obtaining outside newsfeed.  Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“Recent developments related to Canada’s Conservative Party and the upcoming federal election suggest a complex political landscape. The Conservatives have repeatedly attempted, but ultimately failed, to pass a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, facing difficulties in securing sufficient support from other opposition parties. Meanwhile, Conservative MP Jamil Jivani’s engagement with international counterparts underscores the party’s diplomatic efforts amid challenges, such as potential U.S. tariff threats under a Trump-influenced administration. Speculation around the 2025 federal election is intensifying, with some sources predicting a strong Conservative performance, though these claims must be approached cautiously given potential biases and the volatile nature of political forecasting.”

Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, along with their evaluations:

1. **Fact:** The Conservatives have attempted, but failed, to pass a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government.
– **Correctness:** True. The Conservative Party in Canada has made multiple attempts to challenge Justin Trudeau’s government but has not successfully passed a vote of no confidence, due to insufficient support from other opposition parties.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. The ability to pass a vote of no confidence could have led to an early election and potentially impacted the number of seats the Conservatives could win.

2. **Fact:** Conservative MP Jamil Jivani has engaged with international counterparts.
– **Correctness:** Uncertain. Jamil Jivani is a former Ontario minister known for his community and social advocacy, but there is no widely known information regarding his role as a Conservative MP engaging internationally.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False. Engagement with international counterparts does not directly impact the number of seats the Conservative Party will win in a federal election.

3. **Fact:** There are potential U.S. tariff threats under a Trump-influenced administration.
– **Correctness:** Uncertain. While U.S. tariff threats are possible under a Trump-influenced Republican Party, the administration’s specific policies towards Canada regarding tariffs are not definitively known at this time.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False. Potential U.S. tariff threats, while relevant to Canada’s overall economic and diplomatic relations, are less relevant to the specific outcome of the Conservative Party’s seat count in a Canadian federal election.

4. **Fact:** There is speculation around the 2025 federal election, with some predicting a strong Conservative performance.
– **Correctness:** True. Political speculation is common as elections approach, and some predictions suggest a possible strong Conservative performance.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. Speculation around the election and predictions of performance are directly related to the question of how many seats the Conservative Party might win in the next federal election.

5. **Fact:** These election outcome claims must be approached cautiously due to potential biases and the volatile nature of political forecasting.
– **Correctness:** True. Political forecasts are inherently uncertain and can be biased or inaccurate.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. The need for caution in predicting election results is relevant to understanding the uncertainty in determining the Conservative Party’s seat count in advance.

Fact-checked summary: The Conservative Party in Canada has made multiple attempts to pass a vote of no confidence against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government but has not succeeded due to insufficient support from other opposition parties; this could have led to an early election impacting seat counts. Speculation exists around the 2025 federal election, with some predictions suggesting a strong performance by the Conservatives, which is directly related to the question of how many seats they might win. However, political forecasts are inherently uncertain and must be approached cautiously due to potential biases, highlighting the difficulty in predicting the exact number of seats the Conservative Party will secure.

Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.35, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.2, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 4)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.2, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 5)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.15, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.2] – confidence: 6)

Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 5
# LLM responses: 3
Model value :
* less than 172: 0.2
* between 172 and 205: 0.4
* between 206 and 240: 0.3
* more than 240: 0.1

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The Conservative Party in Canada currently leads in polling, but a number of factors suggest that predicting their success in the upcoming election is complex and uncertain. Although they are in a strong opposition position following attempts to pass no-confidence votes against the Liberal government, their inability to secure widespread support from other parties highlights potential challenges in achieving a majority. Historical data suggests their typical seat range is between 172 and 240, with a shift beyond 240 being a rare occurrence. The 2025 election timeframe allows for political changes that could impact this prediction, with regional, economic, and unforeseen events potentially swinging voter sentiment. Polls are known to fluctuate, and given the historically unpredictable nature of elections, particularly with emerging volatility among voters, any forecast remains tentative until closer to election time.

Past Multi-AI Oracle Forecasts

Guide to our Multi-AI Oracle’s Reports 

Median: We collect the output values from the LLMs in an array. We then take the median value. This is between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0.15 = 15%).
Base rate: Currently we take OpenAI’s value as the base rate. We are working on a better value using a different prompt that takes into account process. The base rate helps to determine if the median makes sense.
SD: The standard deviation between the median and the base rate.
Confidence: We query each of the LLMs on how confident they are of their predictions (between 0 and 10) and take a median. Because the LLMs tend to be overconfident, we take anything lower than 6 as being low confidence. This factors into the overall model.
Conf Mode: Based on the confidence value. >=9 is high confidence. Below 6 is low confidence (this is also triggered by an exceptionally high SD).
Mellers: This refers to Barbara Mellers, specifically a paper she wrote that includes a formula for moving values towards an extreme (i.e. 0 or 1).
Reverse Mellers: This uses the formula from above, but with a sub-1 coefficient to move the values closer to 50%.
Theory of Mind: We ask the LLMs what they think other LLMs would predict. We hope that this makes them consider the questions more deeply.
Beta Distribution: Currently unused, but possibly of interest. This is based on the median, the base rate and the SD.
Close Type: We noticed that the appropriate base case for some questions is closer to the extremes, while others are closer to 50%. When we have a low confidence value, this helps us to determine whether to extremize or de-extremize the value. ‘A’ implies closer to zero. ‘B’ implies closer to 50%. ‘C’ implies closer to 100%.
# LLM Responses: The count of LLMs that responded. We query 5 currently, but they have a relatively high API failure rate.
Model value: For normal confidence mode, this is the median. For high confidence, this is the Mellers value. For low confidence, this is either the Mellers or Reverse Mellers (depending on the Close Type).