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%, the same as yesterday.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“The proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel by Nippon Steel, valued at approximately $14.9 billion, is currently under scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), with President Biden reportedly intending to block the deal on national security grounds. Nippon Steel has publicly criticized the political opposition to the takeover as “inappropriate,” arguing that the merger would bolster U.S. economic security against Chinese threats. Despite these claims, both parties are preparing for possible litigation should the acquisition be blocked. The CFIUS is expected to deliberate on the matter by December 22, while U.S. Steel’s stock has seen a decline amid the ongoing review.”
Fact-checking news summary: Below is a list of specific facts from the summary, along with their evaluation of correctness and relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact:** The proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel by Nippon Steel is valued at approximately $14.9 billion.
– **Correctness:** True (Assuming accuracy of reported figures).
– **Relevance:** True (Financial valuation is relevant to merger outcomes and deliberations).
2. **Fact:** The acquisition is under scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
– **Correctness:** True (CFIUS reviews are common for foreign acquisitions of US companies impacting national security).
– **Relevance:** True (CFIUS scrutiny is crucial to the probability of the merger being approved).
3. **Fact:** President Biden reportedly intends to block the deal on national security grounds.
– **Correctness:** Unable to verify, speculative (Intents are typically not confirmed until actions are taken).
– **Relevance:** True (Presidential intervention directly impacts the merger’s likelihood).
4. **Fact:** Nippon Steel has publicly criticized the political opposition to the takeover as “inappropriate.”
– **Correctness:** Assuming true based on summary, but requires source for verification.
– **Relevance:** True (Public relations and positions influence merger proceedings).
5. **Fact:** Nippon Steel argues the merger would bolster U.S. economic security against Chinese threats.
– **Correctness:** True (consistent with corporate statements in merger contexts).
– **Relevance:** True (Argumentation for merger provides context for CFIUS deliberations).
6. **Fact:** Both parties are preparing for possible litigation should the acquisition be blocked.
– **Correctness:** True (Preparing for litigation is a common strategy in contested mergers).
– **Relevance:** True (Litigation impacts the probability and timeline of a merger’s completion).
7. **Fact:** CFIUS is expected to deliberate on the matter by December 22.
– **Correctness:** True (Assuming accuracy of reported timelines).
– **Relevance:** True (The timing of CFIUS deliberation is directly relevant to the merger announcement).
8. **Fact:** U.S. Steel’s stock has seen a decline amid the ongoing review.
– **Correctness:** True (Market reactions are typical during merger uncertainties).
– **Relevance:** False (Stock price movements are not directly relevant to the official merger announcement timeline).
Fact-checked summary: The proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel by Nippon Steel is valued at approximately $14.9 billion and is currently under scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is a common process for foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies due to national security concerns. Both parties involved in the merger are preparing for possible litigation in the event that the acquisition is blocked. Additionally, CFIUS is expected to deliberate on the matter by December 22, which will directly impact the probability and timeline of the merger announcement. Nippon Steel has argued that the merger would enhance U.S. economic security against potential Chinese threats, which is a point of discussion in the CFIUS deliberations.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.35.
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate takes into account the typical approval rate for foreign acquisitions by CFIUS, which is moderate but complicated by the national security implications. Nippon Steel’s proactive approach in arguing the U.S. strategic benefit might influence CFIUS positively. Past similar cases show a mix of outcomes (approvals and blocks), but the high value of the deal suggests significant effort on both parts to see it through.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: A key divergent factor would be the political climate around U.S. foreign investments which can influence CFIUS decisions. Increased tension around foreign ownership could increase scrutiny, but arguments on enhancing security against Chinese threats might mitigate concerns. Additionally, unforeseen geopolitical developments or changes in U.S. policy could lead to a divergence from the anticipated decision.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– CFIUS approval: Likelihood is moderate. CFIUS is scrutinizing the acquisition because it involves a foreign company acquiring a U.S. asset that might have national security implications. Nippon Steel’s arguments focusing on enhancing U.S. economic security against potential Chinese threats may positively influence the decision.
– Successful negotiation of merger terms: Likelihood is high. The merger parties are preparing for potential litigation, indicative of a strong commitment to the merger despite challenges.
– Regulatory compliance and satisfaction of all legal requirements: Likelihood is high. Both companies have experience in such transactions and are likely prepared for compliance, though legal opposition could complicate matters.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.75 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.65 – confidence: 7)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.4 – confidence: 5)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.65
Base rate: 0.35 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.15
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.71
Reverse Mellers: 0.6
Theory of Mind: 0.5 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.02
Close Type: B (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 likelihood of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being announced before January 21, 2025, largely depends on CFIUS approval, expected by December 22, 2024. Both Nippon Steel’s strategic framing of the merger as beneficial to U.S. economic security, and the parties’ preparation for litigation, reflect a strong commitment to the merger. The high value of the deal and the companies’ merger experience also suggest readiness for regulatory compliance. However, national security concerns, political climate, and potential geopolitical developments could affect the CFIUS decision. New U.S. policy changes or intensified scrutiny due to foreign ownership tensions might delay or derail the merger, and significant opposition from stakeholders such as labor unions could emerge.
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, 34% down from 57% yesterday.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:
The newsfeed highlights various global developments related to dockworkers’ strikes and potential labor disruptions. In the U.S., dockworkers have recently ended a strike but may resume if labor negotiations stall by January 15, 2025, with concerns including automation and wage increases. Record-setting U.S. imports reflect preemptive shipping ahead of the potential strike. Canadian west coast ports face work stoppages as unions and employers clash over labor conditions and automation. Similarly, dockworkers in India are preparing for an indefinite strike over wage disputes. Additionally, a potential strike in Canada threatens further disruptions. These labor actions underscore ongoing tensions in global supply chains, which could have significant economic impacts.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here are specific facts extracted from the summary, along with a check for accuracy against internal and external consistency and an indication of their relevance to the original question:
1. Fact: U.S. dockworkers have recently ended a strike.
– Correct: True (internally consistent with the statement that they may resume a strike).
– Relevant: True (relevant to the probability of a strike in Q1 2025).
2. Fact: U.S. dockworkers may resume a strike if labor negotiations stall by January 15, 2025.
– Correct: True (internally consistent with the statement about returning to negotiations on January 15, 2025).
– Relevant: True (relevant to the probability of a strike in Q1 2025).
3. Fact: Concerns for U.S. dockworkers include automation and wage increases.
– Correct: True (internally consistent with the context of the bargaining issues).
– Relevant: True (relevant to the potential outcome of the negotiations).
4. Fact: Record-setting U.S. imports reflect preemptive shipping ahead of the potential strike.
– Correct: Potentially True (plausible given the context, though not explicitly mentioned as a checked fact in the summary).
– Relevant: True (relevant as it reflects anticipation and likelihood of labor disruptions affecting negotiations).
5. Fact: Canadian west coast ports face work stoppages due to clashes over labor conditions and automation.
– Correct: True (externally, as there have been recent labor disputes involving these issues in Canada).
– Relevant: False (not directly relevant to the probability of a U.S. strike in Q1 2025).
6. Fact: Dockworkers in India are preparing for an indefinite strike over wage disputes.
– Correct: True (externally, as there have been reports of labor unrest in India concerning wage disputes).
– Relevant: False (not directly relevant to the probability of a U.S. strike in Q1 2025).
7. Fact: A potential strike in Canada threatens further disruptions.
– Correct: True (externally, as consistent with the report of Canadian labor tensions).
– Relevant: False (not directly relevant to the probability of a U.S. strike in Q1 2025).
8. Fact: Ongoing tensions in global supply chains could have significant economic impacts.
– Correct: True (consistent with economic analysis of labor disruptions).
– Relevant: True (relevant as it provides context for the economic significance of a potential U.S. strike).
Each fact is assessed for its internal and external veracity, and its connection to the issue of a U.S. dockworkers’ strike in early 2025.
Fact-checked summary: U.S. dockworkers recently ended a strike, but they may resume it if labor negotiations stall by January 15, 2025. Key issues for the dockworkers include automation and wage increases, which are relevant in the upcoming negotiations. Additionally, ongoing tensions in global supply chains could have significant economic impacts, underscoring the importance of the upcoming talks and the probability of a strike in Q1 2025. These facts highlight the potential for labor disruptions if negotiations do not progress favorably for the dockworkers.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.3. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate of 0.3 reflects the moderate likelihood of a strike resuming based on historical data of labor disputes and negotiations, particularly in industries with complex issues such as automation and wage disputes. Previous labor negotiations have shown similar patterns of escalation when key issues are not addressed. Given the current tensions in global supply chains, there is an added pressure for both parties to resolve the negotiations favorably, yet this pressure could either facilitate agreement or exacerbate conflict.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Factors that could diverge the outcome from the base rate include successful early resolutions that address key concerns of the dockworkers, which would reduce the likelihood of a strike. Additionally, external economic pressures or government intervention in the negotiations could play a role in hastening a favorable outcome, lowering the chance of a strike. Conversely, worsening global supply chain issues or economic downturns could increase the probability of labor disruptions, as they might harden both parties’ stances.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Labor negotiations must stall or hit a significant impasse by January 15, 2025, which has a moderate likelihood of occurring given the ongoing tensions and complexity around automation and wage increases.
– The issues of automation and wage increases must remain unresolved in a way that is unsatisfactory to the dockworkers, which is moderately likely given their importance in negotiations.
– The dockworkers’ union must decide to resume their strike, which has a moderate likelihood if negotiations stall and their key concerns are not addressed.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.45 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.35
Base rate: 0.3 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.05
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.29
Reverse Mellers: 0.4
Theory of Mind: 0.5 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.14
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.35
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The reasoning across the various AI outputs suggests a moderate probability of a U.S. dockworkers’ strike in Q1 2025. This prediction is based on unresolved issues such as automation, which remain contentious despite recent agreements on salary increases. The historical propensity for strikes when key issues are unresolved further contributes to the likelihood. The January 2025 negotiations are critical, especially given the short timeframe for addressing these complex issues. Yet, there are factors that could mitigate this strike risk: the recent salary agreement may have fostered some goodwill; the current global supply chain disruptions and economic conditions put pressure on both parties to reach an agreement; and external factors, such as government intervention, could also avert a strike. While recent strike activity indicates a readiness to take action, it’s also possible that resource constraints or strategic shifts could lead the union to seek alternative resolutions.
Our bots vs humans experiments
Our concluded FED rate increase competition.
All our current bot projects
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: 45%
* between 172 and 205: 35%
* between 206 and 240: 15%
* more than 240: 5%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“Recent reports indicate that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has survived its third no-confidence vote, largely due to the support from the New Democratic Party (NDP). Despite the efforts of the Conservative Party, which holds 119 seats in the Canadian House of Commons, the motion was defeated by a vote of 180-152. This development suggests persistent political tensions, yet the Liberals maintain their current hold on power, with 153 seats. The outcome of this vote continues to shape the political dynamics in Canada as the country approaches future elections. However, the reliability of these reports may vary, as some sources could potentially include unconfirmed information or bias.”
Fact-checking news summary: Based on the summary, the following specific facts are extracted, along with their correctness and relevance to the original question:
1. **Fact:** Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has survived its third no-confidence vote.
– **Correct?** True (as of the last known information, Trudeau’s government has faced and survived no-confidence votes multiple times).
– **Relevant?** False (this does not directly inform the number of seats the Conservative Party might win).
2. **Fact:** The support from the New Democratic Party (NDP) helped the Liberal government survive the no-confidence vote.
– **Correct?** True (the NDP has historically supported the Liberal government in critical votes).
– **Relevant?** False (this fact is about current parliamentary support and does not directly predict future election outcomes).
3. **Fact:** The Conservative Party holds 119 seats in the Canadian House of Commons.
– **Correct?** True (as of the most recent parliamentary session, the Conservative Party held 119 seats).
– **Relevant?** True (the current number of seats they hold is related to their baseline position before an election).
4. **Fact:** The motion was defeated by a vote of 180-152.
– **Correct?** True (the numbers are plausible according to the described scenario, assuming all members voted).
– **Relevant?** False (the exact vote count in this instance does not pertain to future seat predictions for the Conservatives).
5. **Fact:** The Liberals maintain their current hold on power with 153 seats.
– **Correct?** True (this aligns with previous seat counts for the Liberals).
– **Relevant?** False (this fact is about the present status, not the future election outlook).
6. **Fact:** The outcome of the vote influences political dynamics as Canada nears future elections.
– **Correct?** True (political dynamics often influence elections).
– **Relevant?** True (political dynamics can affect election outcomes).
7. **Fact:** The reliability of these reports may vary due to unconfirmed information or bias.
– **Correct?** True (it is reasonable to be cautious about reports and their potential biases).
– **Relevant?** False (this does not provide a specific prediction about seat counts).
Overall, while several facts are true within the summary, their relevance to predicting the number of seats the Conservative Party will win in future Canadian federal elections is limited. The summary offers context but does not directly answer the original question.
Fact-checked summary: The Conservative Party currently holds 119 seats in the Canadian House of Commons. This fact is relevant as it establishes their baseline position ahead of the next federal election. Additionally, political dynamics, influenced by recent votes and parliamentary proceedings, can impact future election outcomes, which may affect the number of seats the Conservative Party might win. However, the summary does not provide a direct prediction of the future seat count for the Conservatives.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.45, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.65, “between 172 and 205”: 0.25, “between 206 and 240”: 0.09, “more than 240”: 0.01] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.3, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.2, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 5)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 5
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.45
* between 172 and 205: 0.35
* between 206 and 240: 0.15
* more than 240: 0.05
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The Conservative Party, currently holding 119 seats, would need to gain at least 53 seats to reach the low end of projected outcomes, and over 100 to achieve more ambitious targets. Historically, such shifts in Canadian politics are rare, though not impossible. Current polling indicates increasing Conservative support, but translating this into substantial seat gains would require significant shifts in voter sentiment. Factors influencing potential outcomes include current political dynamics, the performance of the incumbents, potential missteps by the ruling Liberal party, and unforeseen economic or societal issues. While modest gains appear feasible, achieving dramatic increases in seats would likely necessitate major shifts in public opinion or significant political events akin to past realignments.
Runtime for all of today’s news: 204 seconds.
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).
