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, 15%, up from 5% yesterday.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“”The newsfeed presents multiple articles discussing President-elect Donald Trump’s intention to block a proposed acquisition of US Steel by Japanese company Nippon Steel, with the deal reportedly valued between $14.9 and $15 billion. Trump cites national security concerns and aims to support domestic steel production through protectionist measures such as tax incentives and tariffs. The merger has faced criticism from lawmakers and the United Steelworkers union, who are concerned about job losses and the implications of foreign ownership. US Steel executives express support for the deal due to potential investments exceeding $2.7 billion in unionized facilities, but the acquisition’s future remains uncertain amid these political challenges.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts from the summary, along with their status regarding correctness and relevance to the original question about the probability of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025.
1. **Fact:** President-elect Donald Trump intends to block a proposed acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel.
– **True/False (Correctness):** False. There is no specific publicly documented instance of Trump intending to block a merger between US Steel and Nippon Steel during his tenure.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. This information is directly relevant to the original question since Trump’s opposition could affect the likelihood of the merger being announced.
2. **Fact:** The proposed acquisition is valued between $14.9 and $15 billion.
– **True/False (Correctness):** Cannot be determined. There hasn’t been a specific documented merger proposal with public details including this valuation.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. The financial valuation is relevant because it reflects the scale and seriousness of the merger.
3. **Fact:** Trump cites national security concerns regarding the merger.
– **True/False (Correctness):** False. There is no record of Trump citing national security concerns for this specific merger.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. Citing national security concerns is relevant as it could determine whether he might block the merger.
4. **Fact:** Trump aims to support domestic steel production through protectionist measures such as tax incentives and tariffs.
– **True/False (Correctness):** True. Trump’s presidency has involved policies supportive of domestic industries through tariffs and other protectionist measures, particularly targeting steel.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. Such protectionist measures can impact the likelihood of the merger being announced or completed.
5. **Fact:** The merger has faced criticism from lawmakers and the United Steelworkers union.
– **True/False (Correctness):** Cannot be determined. Without specific documentation on a publicly proposed merger, this fact is speculative.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. Criticism from lawmakers and unions impacts the merger’s potential announcement and completion.
6. **Fact:** US Steel executives express support for the deal due to potential investments exceeding $2.7 billion in unionized facilities.
– **True/False (Correctness):** Cannot be determined. Without a public proposal and response, this statement’s accuracy is speculative.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. Executive support and potential investments would significantly influence the merger’s likelihood of proceeding.
7. **Fact:** The acquisition’s future remains uncertain amid political challenges.
– **True/False (Correctness):** True. In general, mergers of this nature can face significant political challenges which may create uncertainty.
– **True/False (Relevance):** True. Any uncertainty regarding political challenges directly impacts the merger’s potential official announcement timeline.
Fact-checked summary: President Trump aimed to support domestic steel production through protectionist measures, such as tariffs, which could influence the likelihood of a US Steel and Nippon Steel merger being announced before January 21, 2025. While this merger’s potential announcement faces uncertainty due to political challenges typical of such large acquisitions, there is no specific documented proposal or opposition from Trump, nor any cited national security concerns tied to this instance. These political and economic dynamics are crucial as they could either facilitate or hinder the formal announcement of the merger.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.15. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate is estimated considering that large cross-border mergers like this occur infrequently and are often challenged by regulatory bodies, reducing the overall probability. Despite the potential alignment in boosting domestic production and competitive positioning, political dynamics and protectionism under Trump’s administration can both hinder and motivate such mergers. However, there’s no specific merger proposal currently documented, which further decreases the likelihood of an agreement being announced imminently. Historical frequency of similar mergers being successful without pre-existing proposals remains low, contributing to a conservative base rate.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Several factors could alter the outcome from the base rate. A change in political climate or leadership in the US or Japan could either encourage more protectionism, affecting merger dynamics, or reduce opposition to such mergers. Additionally, if strategic needs between the companies change due to market pressures or technological advancements, this may accelerate or stall merger discussions. Changes in tariffs or trade policies before January 2025 could also catalyze a faster consensus on potential merger benefits, impacting the likelihood of an announcement.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– US Steel and Nippon Steel must engage in exploratory discussions about a potential merger, which is assessed as possible given the current economic environment.
– There must be corporate and strategic alignment between US Steel and Nippon Steel for a merger, estimated as uncertain due to differing corporate goals and market strategies.
– Both companies must agree on a valuation and merger terms acceptable to their respective boards and shareholders, which is often challenging and thus plausible.
– Regulatory bodies in both the US and potentially Japan must approve the merger, which is uncertain given the size and impact of the companies involved.
Querying Perplexity… (Error: Perplexity is not returning an array)
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 5)
Querying Cohere… (Error: Cohere is not returning an array)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.1 – confidence: 5)
Median from LLMs: 0.15
Base rate: 0.15 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.06
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.07
Reverse Mellers: 0.24
Theory of Mind: 0.25 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.46
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value (not submitted): 0.15
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews).
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The general consensus among the AIs is that the likelihood of a merger between US Steel and Nippon Steel being announced by January 21, 2025, is low. This prediction is based on several factors: the absence of public indications of merger discussions, the historically low success rate of large cross-border mergers, and the challenges posed by regulatory approvals in both the US and Japan. Additionally, the current political environment, characterized by protectionism under President Trump, complicates such a merger. The lack of a documented merger proposal and differences in corporate strategies and goals further diminish the probability of an imminent announcement. However, there are potential factors that could disrupt this prediction, such as confidential discussions already in progress, economic pressures in the steel industry, or shifts in political and economic climates that could facilitate a merger unexpectedly.
Runtime: 154 seconds.
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, 35%, up from 33% yesterday.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:
The newsfeed discusses recent developments involving the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and their negotiations with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX). Following a three-day strike, the union achieved a 62% wage increase for dockworkers and agreed to extend their Master Contract until January 15, 2025, allowing time to address unresolved issues such as automation. The articles emphasize that the outcome of these negotiations will significantly impact the likelihood of further strikes in Q1 2025. Additionally, a separate piece on a strike in Cyprus underscores the complex dynamics of labor negotiations, which may have parallels in the dockworkers’ situation. Overall, the possibility of a strike in Q1 2025 depends heavily on the pending negotiations over key issues like automation.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here’s a list of specific facts stated in the summary, their correctness, and their relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact**: The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) were involved in negotiations.
– **Correct (True/False)**: True. These are real entities known to negotiate labor contracts.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: True. This fact is central to understanding the negotiations affecting the likelihood of a strike.
2. **Fact**: The union achieved a 62% wage increase for dockworkers.
– **Correct (True/False)**: False. A 62% wage increase is unusually high and unlikely in typical labor negotiations. This seems inconsistent with typical wage increases unless verified by specific sources.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: True. The wage increase is relevant as it indicates the magnitude of concessions obtained by the union, which affects the likelihood of future strikes.
3. **Fact**: The union agreed to extend their Master Contract until January 15, 2025.
– **Correct (True/False)**: True, assuming correctness in the context of the summary provided.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: True. Extending the contract is relevant as it sets a timeline for when further discussions, and potentially decisions about strikes, will be made.
4. **Fact**: Issues such as automation remain unresolved.
– **Correct (True/False)**: True. Labor negotiations often include discussions on automation and other changes affecting job security.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: True. The resolution of automation issues is directly pertinent to future negotiations and the potential for strikes.
5. **Fact**: The outcome of negotiations will significantly impact the likelihood of further strikes in Q1 2025.
– **Correct (True/False)**: True. Common sense and historical precedent suggest that unresolved or contentious negotiations can lead to strikes.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: True. The successful outcome of these negotiations is directly linked to preventing future strikes.
6. **Fact**: A separate piece on a strike in Cyprus underscores the complex dynamics of labor negotiations.
– **Correct (True/False)**: True. Labor negotiations are generally complex and often shared across different contexts.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: False. While it provides context and depth, a strike in Cyprus does not directly affect the probability of a strike in Q1 2025 for the ILA and USMX.
7. **Fact**: The possibility of a strike in Q1 2025 depends heavily on the pending negotiations over key issues like automation.
– **Correct (True/False)**: True. Pending negotiations, especially on critical issues, typically dictate the likelihood of future strikes.
– **Relevant (True/False)**: True. The statement directly informs the potential for a strike, addressing crucial factors in decision-making processes leading up to Q1 2025.
Fact-checked summary: The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) are engaged in negotiations that include unresolved issues such as automation, which significantly impact the potential for future strikes. The union has agreed to extend their Master Contract until January 15, 2025, at which point further discussions on these issues will take place. The outcome of these negotiations, particularly regarding unresolved issues like automation, will play a crucial role in determining the probability of a strike in the first quarter of 2025.
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 accounts for labor negotiations in the past between unions and employers, where a satisfactory resolution is often reached, though not always before deadlines. The likelihood of a strike depends on unresolved contentious issues like automation, which has been a historically divisive topic, potentially increasing the probability of a strike. However, the extension of the Master Contract until mid-January 2025 implies a willingness to negotiate further, which somewhat diminishes the possibility of a strike immediately after January 15th.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
Factors that could cause the result to differ from the base rate include a breakthrough in negotiations leading to an early resolution of contested issues such as automation, thereby reducing the need for strike action. Conversely, any significant economic or political events influencing port operations or labor relations could escalate tensions, increasing the likelihood of a strike. Additionally, any changes in leadership or strategic priorities of either the ILA or the USMX could impact the direction and outcome of the negotiations.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Breakdown in negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) over unresolved issues like automation. (Possible)
– Inability to reach a satisfactory agreement before the Master Contract extension deadline of January 15, 2025. (Possible)
– Decision by the ILA to initiate a strike action as a last resort in the first quarter of 2025. (Possible)
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.4 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 5)
Median from LLMs: 0.35
Base rate: 0.3 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
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: 0.02
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value (not submitted): 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 AIs indicates that several factors influence the likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025, primarily involving negotiations between the ILA and USMX. Key points include the extension of the Master Contract until January 15, 2025, suggesting a willingness to continue discussions, potentially reducing strike risk. However, automation remains a significant and unresolved contentious issue, historically increasing the possibility of labor disputes. The recent salary agreement, while showing good faith, might also exhaust management’s willingness to compromise further. Although the historical base rate for strikes in such situations is relatively low, it can’t be dismissed due to the combination of unresolved automation issues and potential changing economic and political conditions. The overall prediction could be altered by external factors such as breakthroughs in negotiation or shifts in economic or political landscapes encouraging or discouraging cooperation.
Runtime: 58 seconds.
Our bots vs humans experiments
Our concluded FED rate increase competition.
All our current bot projects
Past Multi-AI Oracle Forecasts
Dec. 3, 2024
Dec. 2, 2024
Nov. 29, 2024
Nov. 28, 2024
Nov. 26, 2024
Nov. 25, 2024
Nov. 22, 2024
Nov. 21, 2024
Nov. 20, 2024
Nov. 19, 2024
Nov. 18, 2024
Nov. 15, 2024
Nov. 14, 2024
Nov. 13, 2024
Nov. 12, 2024
Nov. 11, 2024
Nov. 8, 2024
Nov. 7, 2024
Nov. 6, 2024
Nov. 5, 2024
Nov. 4, 2024
Nov. 1, 2024
Oct. 31, 2024
Oct. 30, 2024
Oct. 29, 2024
Oct. 28, 2024
Oct. 25, 2024
Oct. 24, 2024
Oct. 23, 2024
Oct. 22, 2024
Oct. 21, 2024
Oct. 17, 2024
Oct. 16, 2024
Oct. 16, 2024
Oct. 15, 2024
Oct. 14, 2024
Oct. 11, 2024
Oct. 10, 2024
Oct. 9, 2024
Oct. 8, 2024
Oct. 7, 2024
Oct. 3, 2024
Oct. 2, 2024
Oct. 1, 2024
Sept. 30, 2024
Sept. 27, 2024
Sept. 26, 2024
Sept. 25, 2024
Sept. 24, 2024
Sept. 23, 2024
Sept. 18, 2024
Sept. 17, 2024
Sept. 16, 2024
Sept. 13, 2024
Sept. 12, 2024
Sept. 11, 2024
Sept. 10, 2024
Sept. 9, 2024
Sept. 6, 2024
Sept. 5, 2024
Sept. 4, 2024
Sept. 3, 2024
Sept. 2, 2024
Aug. 30, 2024
Aug. 29, 2024
Aug. 28, 2024
Aug. 27, 2024
Aug. 26, 2024
Aug. 23, 2024
Aug. 22, 2024
Aug. 21, 2024
Aug. 20, 2024
Aug. 19, 2024
Aug. 16, 2024
Aug. 15, 2024
Aug. 14, 2024
Aug. 13, 2024
Aug. 12, 2024
Aug. 9, 2024
Aug. 8, 2024
Aug. 7, 2024
Aug. 6, 2024
Aug. 5. 2024
Aug. 2, 2024
Aug. 1, 2024
July 31, 2024
July 30, 2024
July 29, 2024
July 26, 2024
July 25, 2024
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).
