Updates from BestWorld’s AI Botmaster Jeremy Lichtman of Dec. 6, 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, 10%, down from 23% yesterday. 

Obtaining outside newsfeed. Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“Recent reports surrounding a potential merger between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel have highlighted significant opposition and economic uncertainty. Nippon Steel is pushing to complete a $15 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, despite strong opposition from both President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, each aligning with bipartisan concerns about national security and foreign ownership. Trump’s administration is firmly against the deal, citing national pride and strategic interests, while Biden’s administration also appears poised to block it due to security considerations. Analysts have noted a sharp decline in U.S. Steel’s stock following statements from Trump, reflecting market uncertainty about the acquisition’s success. Despite these challenges, proponents argue that the merger could introduce substantial investment and preserve jobs, particularly in the Pittsburgh area. Tensions have been further complicated by inconsistent evaluations from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has faced criticism for its handling of foreign investment deals.”

Fact-checking news summary: Let’s break down the summary into specific facts and evaluate them for correctness and relevance:

1. **Recent reports highlight significant opposition and economic uncertainty around a potential U.S. Steel/Nippon Steel merger.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent and reasonable based on the context provided.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as opposition and uncertainty are directly relevant to the probability of the merger announcement.

2. **Nippon Steel is pushing to complete a $15 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent, though external verification would be needed for current accuracy.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as the completion effort is inherently tied to the likelihood of the merger being announced.

3. **There is strong opposition from both President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden.**
– **Correct:** Internally inconsistent since the title of “President-elect” applies only before taking office, indicating a temporal error, but context otherwise suggests both individuals oppose the merger.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as presidential opposition affects the merger’s likelihood.

4. **Bipartisan concerns exist about national security and foreign ownership related to the merger.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent, aligns with typical concerns about foreign acquisitions.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as bipartisan concerns would influence the merger’s probability of occurring.

5. **Trump’s administration is firmly against the deal, citing national pride and strategic interests.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent but raises questions about temporal errors (overlapping administrations mentioned).
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as the administration’s stance affects merger prospects.

6. **Biden’s administration appears poised to block the deal due to security considerations.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent, but part of the same temporal issue regarding administration overlap.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as the administration’s position impacts the likelihood of announcement.

7. **Analysts have noted a sharp decline in U.S. Steel’s stock following Trump’s statements.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent, assuming the context fits within Trump’s presidency period.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as stock performance could reflect market sentiment on the merger.

8. **Proponents argue the merger could introduce substantial investment and preserve jobs, particularly in Pittsburgh.**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent and plausible arguments from merger supporters.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, positively framed outcomes influence deal negotiations and the likelihood of announcement.

9. **Tensions are further complicated by inconsistent evaluations from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).**
– **Correct:** Internally consistent and aligns with known complexities in foreign investment review processes.
– **Relevant to Outcome:** True, as CFIUS evaluations are directly tied to the merger’s approval chances.

In summary, all facts stated have internal consistency issues primarily due to temporal errors regarding administrative persistence, but each fact remains relevant to the outcome of the probability of the merger announcement before January 21, 2025.

Fact-checked summary: The probability of the U.S. Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025, is influenced by several factors. There is significant opposition and economic uncertainty surrounding the potential merger, which could affect the likelihood of its announcement. Nippon Steel is working towards a $15 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, which is relevant to the merger’s completion. Both President Joe Biden’s and President Trump’s administrations have expressed strong opposition to the merger due to concerns over national security, foreign ownership, national pride, and strategic interests. Bipartisan concerns also exist about these national security implications. Additionally, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has provided inconsistent evaluations, adding complexity to the foreign investment review process. While analysts have observed a decline in U.S. Steel’s stock potentially reflecting market sentiment, proponents argue the merger could bring investment and preserve jobs, particularly in Pittsburgh. These elements collectively impact the probability of the merger’s official announcement before the specified date.

OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.15. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:

The base rate considers the historical frequency of large international mergers of this nature, which often face significant regulatory hurdles and political opposition. The strong bipartisan opposition due to national security concerns and the CFIUS’s inconsistent evaluations significantly lower the likelihood of the merger being announced soon. The declining stock value of U.S. Steel might imply market skepticism, further corroborating a lower probability of announcement.

Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Several factors could increase the probability of the merger announcement: a strategic realignment of U.S. economic policy reducing emphasis on national security concerns, a breakthrough negotiation with regulatory bodies, or Nippon Steel proposing clear offsets that satisfy national interests. Conversely, a detailed strategic review could exacerbate fears, further delaying any advancement, which is likely given the current strong political stance against foreign acquisitions.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:  – Nippon Steel successfully resolves any national security concerns raised by the U.S. government, particularly from CFIUS. (Unlikely)
– Nippon Steel finalizes the terms of the acquisition with U.S. Steel by January 2025. (Unlikely)
– The $15 billion acquisition proposal is approved by Nippon Steel’s board and shareholders. (Moderately likely)
– Regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, do not find antitrust issues blocking the merger. (Unlikely)

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.1 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.1 – confidence: 5)

Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.1
Base rate: 0.15 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.04
Reverse Mellers: 0.19
Theory of Mind: 0.2 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.99
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value (not submitted): 0.1

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows: The consensus among the AI analyses suggests that the merger between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel faces significant challenges, making a near-term announcement unlikely. Key obstacles include bipartisan political opposition and national security concerns requiring CFIUS approval, which is often unpredictable. Additionally, the declining stock price of U.S. Steel indicates market skepticism, and historical precedence shows that large international mergers with national security implications rarely proceed swiftly. Despite these hurdles, there is a possibility for a surprise announcement if behind-the-scenes negotiations are advanced or if strategic economic policy shifts reduce national security concerns. Nippon Steel might address these issues by offering concessions or solutions that align with U.S. interests, potentially easing political and regulatory opposition.

Runtime: 75 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%, down from 40% yesterday.

Obtaining outside newsfeed.  Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“The latest news articles on the “US Dock Workers Strike 2025″ suggest ongoing tensions and potential industrial action involving U.S. dockworkers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), who recently ended a strike but may initiate another if negotiations do not progress by January 15, 2025. The strikes revolve around demands for substantial wage increases to counter inflation and longstanding wage stagnation, as well as opposition to port automation, perceived as a threat to job security. While a provisional agreement has provided temporary respite, with wage hikes and contract extensions achieved, uncertainties about future labor strikes continue to loom. The broader logistics sector anticipates disruptions, with air cargo possibly benefiting, contributing to a cautious atmosphere around global trade flows. However, conflicting reports and rumors emphasize these developments should be approached critically.”

Fact-checking news summary: Based on the summary provided, here is a list of specific facts, their truthfulness, and their relevance to the probability of a strike in Q1 2025:

1. **Fact:** The U.S. dockworkers are represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA).
– **Truthfulness:** True. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) is one of the unions representing dockworkers in the U.S.
– **Relevance:** True. The representation of dockworkers affects the negotiation process and potential for strike action.

2. **Fact:** A recent strike by U.S. dockworkers has ended.
– **Truthfulness:** True. The summary states a recent strike has ended; however, this requires real-time confirmation as news develops.
– **Relevance:** True. Ending a recent strike may influence future strike probabilities and negotiations.

3. **Fact:** Dockworkers may initiate another strike if negotiations do not progress by January 15, 2025.
– **Truthfulness:** True. The summary suggests potential for another strike by that date if negotiations stall.
– **Relevance:** True. The possibility of another strike by a specific date directly relates to the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.

4. **Fact:** The ongoing negotiations are related to demands for substantial wage increases.
– **Truthfulness:** True. Wage increases are a common demand in labor negotiations, especially in light of inflation.
– **Relevance:** True. Successful or unsuccessful wage negotiations will impact the likelihood of a strike.

5. **Fact:** There is opposition to port automation perceived as a threat to job security.
– **Truthfulness:** True. Dockworkers traditionally oppose automation efforts that threaten job security.
– **Relevance:** True. Disputes over automation are central to labor negotiations and can affect strike probabilities.

6. **Fact:** A provisional agreement has provided wage hikes and contract extensions.
– **Truthfulness:** True. The summary states a provisional agreement exists which has resulted in wage hikes and contract extensions.
– **Relevance:** True. A provisional agreement can temporarily alleviate tensions, affecting strike likelihood.

7. **Fact:** Uncertainties about future labor strikes continue to loom.
– **Truthfulness:** True. Given the nature of ongoing tensions, it is reasonable to assume uncertainties remain.
– **Relevance:** True. These uncertainties are directly related to the probability of a strike.

8. **Fact:** The broader logistics sector anticipates disruptions.
– **Truthfulness:** True. Labor strikes in ports typically cause disruptions in logistics.
– **Relevance:** False. While disruptions impact the logistics sector, they do not directly affect the likelihood of a strike occurring.

9. **Fact:** Air cargo may benefit from potential disruptions.
– **Truthfulness:** True. Shifts to air cargo are a common response to port disruptions.
– **Relevance:** False. The effect on air cargo is not directly related to the probability of a dockworkers’ strike.

10. **Fact:** Conflicting reports and rumors emphasize developments should be approached critically.
– **Truthfulness:** True. Media coverage often includes conflicting reports which require critical analysis.
– **Relevance:** False. While relevant to forming an opinion, does not directly impact the factual probability of a strike.

Overall, the facts are primarily true and many are relevant to assessing the probability of a strike occurring in Q1 2025.

Fact-checked summary: The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) represents U.S. dockworkers, which is significant as their representation impacts the negotiation process and potential for strike action. Recently, a dockworkers’ strike has ended, a development that may influence future strike probabilities and negotiations. With negotiations set to resume on January 15, 2025, there is potential for another strike if these discussions, which include demands for substantial wage increases and opposition to port automation, fail to progress. A provisional agreement has already been reached, providing wage hikes and contract extensions, which may temporarily ease tensions. Despite this, uncertainties about future labor strikes persist, and these are directly relevant to the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.

OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.25. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:

The base rate of 0.25 reflects historical instances of labor negotiations resulting in strikes within the dockworkers’ industry. Although a provisional agreement has been reached, which reduces immediate tension, it is not unusual for further demands or dissatisfaction among union members to result in strikes. Past similar situations have resolved without strikes after provisional agreements, but given the complexity of negotiations involving wage hikes and port automation, there is still a significant chance of conflict. Additionally, the time frame before the next negotiation round provides opportunities for tensions to both escalate and de-escalate.

Some potential divergent considerations that might effect the base rate: Factors that could lead to a resolution differing from the base rate include successful negotiations addressing both parties’ concerns, particularly regarding wage increases and automation. A positive economic environment reducing perceived or real grievances might lower strike likelihood. Additionally, actions such as improving communication and stakeholder relations can prevent escalation. Conversely, external factors such as economic shocks, policy changes, or international tensions might lead to a higher than predicted strike probability. The ILA leadership’s strategic decisions and public sentiment, as well as responses from employers or government intervention, are other variables that might impact the scenario.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:  – Failure of January 15, 2025 negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and their employers. Moderate
– Rejection of the provisional agreement by the majority of ILA members. Low
– Increased pressure or external factors exacerbating tensions, such as economic downturns or significant policy changes impacting the industry. Low
– Inadequate response to demands for substantial wage increases and opposition to port automation. Moderate
– Potential provocations or breakdowns in communication between stakeholders before or during negotiations. Moderate

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.3 – confidence: 6)

Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.35
Base rate: 0.25 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.29
Reverse Mellers: 0.4
Theory of Mind: 0.4 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.001
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 likelihood of a strike among US dock workers in Q1 2025 hinges on several core factors. Historically, the base rate of strikes during negotiation periods in this industry is 0.25, reflecting a moderate probability. The upcoming January negotiations focus on contentious issues like wage increases and automation, which have historically been tough points for dock workers. The timing of the negotiations allows for potential escalation, especially following a recent strike that leaves unresolved issues. However, a recent provisional agreement on salary increases might have fostered some goodwill and demonstrated a capacity for compromise. Additionally, external factors, such as economic conditions, governmental pressures, and the stakeholders’ willingness to negotiate, could significantly influence the outcome by either alleviating or exacerbating tensions. Ultimately, the ability to address automation concerns and maintain effective communication will be crucial in determining the likelihood of further strike action.

Runtime: 79 seconds.

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: 23.81%
* between 172 and 205: 38.1%
* between 206 and 240: 28.57%
* more than 240: 9.52%

Obtaining outside newsfeed.  Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“The newsfeed addresses multiple topics related to Canada’s Conservative Party and political landscape. The NDP has stated it will not support a Conservative-led non-confidence motion against the Trudeau government, despite criticism of the latter’s broken promises. Additionally, there are criticisms of a proposed financial assistance plan by Trudeau, perceived as electioneering, with opposition figures including Jagmeet Singh calling for broader inclusivity in aid distribution. A Radio-Canada investigation has revealed alleged interference by the Indian government in the 2022 Conservative Party leadership election against Pierre Poilievre, with Michelle Rempel Garner denying pressure to resign from her campaign role. Speculation about the 2025 federal election suggests a strong chance for the Conservatives to regain power, attributed to the Liberals’ controversies. Meanwhile, there are calls for closer scrutiny of Poilievre’s policies as he gains prominence, emphasizing the complexity beneath his rhetoric. These articles reflect current political dynamics and debates in Canada, alongside issues of international influence and electoral predictions.”

Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, along with checks for correctness and relevance to the outcome (prediction of Conservative Party seats):

1. **The NDP will not support a Conservative-led non-confidence motion against the Trudeau government.**
– **Correctness**: True. This fact is plausible if at the time of reporting, the NDP had officially stated they would not support such motions.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Whether or not the NDP supports a no-confidence motion can influence the stability of the Trudeau government and the timing of elections, potentially affecting Conservative Party seat totals.

2. **The Trudeau government is criticized for broken promises.**
– **Correctness**: True. Criticism of broken promises is a common theme in political discourse.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Public perception of the government can impact election outcomes and therefore the number of seats parties win.

3. **There are criticisms of a proposed financial assistance plan by Trudeau, perceived as electioneering.**
– **Correctness**: True. It is likely that opposition figures criticize government assistance plans as electioneering, especially close to any election period.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Electioneering perception can influence voter choice, affecting election results and the seat distribution.

4. **Jagmeet Singh calls for broader inclusivity in aid distribution.**
– **Correctness**: True. It is consistent with the typical stance of the NDP for broader inclusivity in social programs.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Policy positions can affect party popularity and performance in elections, including Conservative seat counts.

5. **A Radio-Canada investigation revealed alleged interference by the Indian government in the 2022 Conservative Party leadership election against Pierre Poilievre.**
– **Correctness**: True, assuming the investigation reported such findings (there is no external source verification here, as the statement is known to be reported as alleged).
– **Relevance to Outcome**: False. Allegations about leadership election interference may not directly impact the number of seats won in the next federal election unless it changes perception significantly.

6. **Michelle Rempel Garner denied pressure to resign from her campaign role.**
– **Correctness**: True, assuming this is based on actual statements from Michelle Rempel Garner at the time reported.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: False. Individual denials of resignation pressure are unlikely to impact federal seat counts directly.

7. **Speculations about the 2025 federal election suggest a strong chance for the Conservatives to regain power due to the Liberals’ controversies.**
– **Correctness**: True if these are conjectures based on existing political analyses and speculations.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Speculations and public sentiment can influence voter behavior and election outcomes, directly affecting seat counts.

8. **Calls for closer scrutiny of Poilievre’s policies as he gains prominence.**
– **Correctness**: True. This is a realistic scenario as parties and leaders gaining prominence often face increased scrutiny.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Scrutiny can influence public perception and therefore election outcomes, affecting Conservative seat totals.

By evaluating these facts, we can gather insights into the political climate and potential influences on the Conservative Party’s performance in the next election.

Fact-checked summary: The upcoming federal election in Canada may be influenced by several factors relevant to the Conservative Party’s potential seat count. The NDP’s decision not to support a Conservative-led non-confidence motion against the Trudeau government could affect election timing and stability. Criticism of the Trudeau government, particularly regarding broken promises and perceived electioneering through financial assistance plans, could shape public perception and voter behavior. Speculations suggest that due to controversies surrounding the Liberals, there’s a strong chance for the Conservatives to regain power. Policy scrutiny of Pierre Poilievre as he gains prominence may also impact public perception and the Conservative Party’s performance. Lastly, Jagmeet Singh’s call for broader inclusivity in aid distribution reflects policy positions that might affect party popularity and election results. These elements collectively shape the political landscape, potentially influencing how many seats the Conservative Party wins.

Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.25, “between 172 and 205”: 0.45, “between 206 and 240”: 0.2, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.25, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 5)
Querying OpenAI (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: 6)

Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 5
# LLM responses: 3
Model value (not submitted):
* less than 172: 0.2381
* between 172 and 205: 0.381
* between 206 and 240: 0.2857
* more than 240: 0.0952

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI (with news sourced from AskNews). A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows: The predictions on potential outcomes for the Canadian Conservative Party in upcoming elections center around several key factors. Current dissatisfaction with the Trudeau government, highlighted by strong polling for the Conservatives and criticism of Liberal policies, suggests a potential gain in seats for the opposition. However, uncertainties remain, such as the timing of elections influenced by the NDP’s decision not to support non-confidence motions, which could stabilize the Liberals temporarily. Pierre Poilievre’s leadership and public perception are vital, as any changes could significantly impact Conservative appeal. While historical patterns suggest a Conservative gain of 172 to 205 seats is plausible, unforeseen events, shifts in public opinion, regional voting dynamics, and potential Liberal recovery or policy changes could alter outcomes dramatically.
Runtime: 90 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).