The International Longshoremen’s Association returned 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, 25%.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the US dockworkers situation:
A major labor dispute between port workers and employers was recently resolved in January 2024. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing 45,000 dock workers on the East and Gulf Coasts, reached a tentative six-year contract agreement with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX). This deal averted a threatened strike that had been set for January 15, 2024.
The central issue in the dispute was automation at ports. [Carolyn’s note: There still may be an issue with automation. The Multi-AI Oracle is contradicting itself because it has stated above that the agreement is “tentative.”] Workers were concerned about job security as port operators pushed for increased automation to compete with more technologically advanced ports in places like Rotterdam, Dubai, and Singapore. However, recent evidence has questioned the benefits of port automation – a U.S. congressional watchdog report found that automation’s advantages were “overhyped,” though it remains a potential path for development.
The new agreement has been described as a “win-win” by both parties, though specific details about how the automation issue was resolved haven’t been fully disclosed. This resolution is significant for the U.S. economy as it prevents potential supply chain disruptions that could have resulted from a work stoppage at major East and Gulf Coast ports.
[Emphasis on most recent: The resolution of the strike threat and reaching of the six-year agreement in January 2024 is the most significant recent development in this story.]
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“In January 2024, a major labor dispute between port workers and employers on the US East and Gulf Coasts was tentatively resolved, with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) reaching a six-year contract agreement. This agreement averted a planned strike over January 15, 2024, largely centered around concerns about job security due to increased port automation. While a U.S. congressional watchdog report recently questioned the benefits of such automation, it remains a potential development avenue. Both parties termed the new agreement a “win-win,” preventing potential supply chain disruptions, although specifics about how the automation issue was settled have not been fully disclosed. This resolution is a significant development, easing tensions that could have impacted the U.S. economy.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Based on the provided summary, here is a list of specific facts stated:
1. **Fact:** In January 2024, there was a major labor dispute between port workers and employers on the US East and Gulf Coasts.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Important.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
2. **Fact:** The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) reached a six-year contract agreement.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Important.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
3. **Fact:** The agreement averted a planned strike over January 15, 2024.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Important.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
4. **Fact:** The labor dispute was largely centered around concerns about job security due to increased port automation.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Critical.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
5. **Fact:** A U.S. congressional watchdog report recently questioned the benefits of port automation.
– **Correctness:** Assume True (unless more information can verify this report’s existence).
– **Importance to Resolution:** Less important.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
6. **Fact:** The agreement between the ILA and USMX was termed a “win-win,” preventing potential supply chain disruptions.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Important.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
7. **Fact:** Specifics about how the automation issue was settled have not been fully disclosed.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Important.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
8. **Fact:** This resolution eased tensions that could have impacted the U.S. economy.
– **Correctness:** True.
– **Importance to Resolution:** Critical.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True.
These facts, particularly those regarding the resolution of automation issues and preventing supply chain disruptions, are highly relevant to assessing the likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025. The absence of disclosed specifics about automation could indicate ongoing tensions or unaddressed issues, affecting the probability of future disputes. Thus, openness and continued negotiations about automation can influence the outcome of avoiding a strike.
Fact-checked summary:
In January 2024, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) reached a six-year contract agreement, successfully averting a planned strike and preventing potential supply chain disruptions. This agreement was reached in response to major labor disputes, which were largely centered around concerns about job security due to increased port automation. While the resolution eased tensions that could have negatively impacted the U.S. economy, the specifics of how the automation issue was settled have not been fully disclosed, indicating that ongoing negotiations may be necessary. The importance of these facts, especially those regarding the resolution of automation concerns, is critical when considering the likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025, as undisclosed details could signify residual tension or unresolved issues that might influence future labor relations.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.25
Base rate: 0.25 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.17
Reverse Mellers: 0.33
Theory of Mind: 0.4 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.001
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.25
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The overall consensus across the analyses is that while the probability of a dock worker strike in Q1 2025 is relatively low, there remains a possibility due to unresolved issues, particularly around automation. The recent six-year contract agreement between the ILA and USMX in January 2024 has seemingly reduced tensions by settling salary disputes and securing job security to some extent, historically correlating with a lower likelihood of strikes. However, concerns persist because the details surrounding the automation agreements are not fully disclosed and could harbor contentious points that might trigger labor actions. Additionally, the return to negotiations and historical precedents imply a small window for rapid escalation, but external pressures or unexpected developments might still influence the outcome. The short period left in Q1 2025 further constrains the likelihood of a strike happening suddenly, despite unresolved issues possibly existing.
How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?
* less than 172: 26%
* between 172 and 205: 42%
* between 206 and 240: 21%
* more than 240: 11%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources:
Based on the provided news articles, here’s a summary of the key points about Canada’s upcoming election:
Recent Provincial Developments (Ontario):
Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party are leading significantly in Ontario’s upcoming February 27 election, with recent polls showing 48% support compared to 28% for the Liberals under Bonnie Crombie and 16% for the NDP. The campaign has entered a more aggressive phase following the second and final leaders’ debate, with increased mud-slinging and opposition research being deployed by various campaigns.
Federal Political Landscape:
Following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement of his planned resignation, there are significant developments in both Liberal and Conservative camps:
– Mark Carney, former Bank of Canada Governor, has emerged as a strong potential Liberal leadership candidate, raising approximately $1.75 million in campaign funds. However, Conservatives are calling for him to proactively disclose any potential financial conflicts of interest before a possible spring federal election.
– The Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre has been focusing on expanding their message beyond their “axe the tax” campaign, with recent rallies emphasizing a broader “Canada First” agenda. There’s also growing discussion about how Trump’s potential return to the US presidency could impact Canadian politics and trade relations.
The political landscape is particularly dynamic right now with both provincial elections underway and federal leadership transitions looming, creating multiple layers of political activity across the country.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“Recent developments in Canadian politics suggest a dynamic landscape both provincially and federally. In Ontario, Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party is leading significantly in polls ahead of the February 27 election, while campaigns become increasingly contentious post-debate. Federally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s upcoming resignation has spurred activity within the Liberal and Conservative parties. Mark Carney is emerging as a notable contender for Liberal leadership, although the Conservatives are urging transparency regarding any financial conflicts. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party is broadening its campaign agenda as discussions arise about the impact of a possible Trump return to the U.S. presidency on Canada. These events highlight a period of intensified political activity and potential transitions across Canada.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Based on the provided summary, here is a list of specific facts with their correctness, importance, and relevance assessments:
1. **Fact**: Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party is leading significantly in polls ahead of the February 27 election in Ontario.
– **Correctness**: True. This claim is consistent with typical political reporting during election periods when a party is leading in provincial polls.
– **Importance**: Lesser. This fact is not directly related to the number of federal seats the Conservative Party will win, as it pertains to a provincial election.
– **Relevance**: False. Ontario’s provincial politics do not directly determine the outcomes of federal elections, notwithstanding indirect influences.
2. **Fact**: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s upcoming resignation has spurred activity within the Liberal and Conservative parties.
– **Correctness**: Indeterminate. As of the latest known data, Justin Trudeau has not announced a resignation. If true, this would be significant.
– **Importance**: Important. Leadership changes can impact party strategies and influence election outcomes.
– **Relevance**: True. Federal leadership changes are relevant to federal election results.
3. **Fact**: Mark Carney is emerging as a notable contender for Liberal leadership.
– **Correctness**: Indeterminate. Mark Carney has been mentioned as a potential candidate, but any developments would need confirmation.
– **Importance**: Lesser. While leadership contenders can influence party directions, this is less critical to Conservative seat outcomes.
– **Relevance**: False. This relates to the Liberal Party, not directly impacting Conservative seat numbers.
4. **Fact**: Conservatives are urging transparency regarding any financial conflicts involving Mark Carney.
– **Correctness**: Indeterminate. While political figures are often vetted for potential conflicts, whether this specific claim is true requires verification.
– **Importance**: Lesser. While related to political conduct, it does not directly influence Conservative seat counts.
– **Relevance**: False. This fact is not related to the Conservative Party’s potential seat wins.
5. **Fact**: Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party is broadening its campaign agenda.
– **Correctness**: True. Political parties often adapt and broaden their agendas, especially in election cycles.
– **Importance**: Important. A broader campaign agenda can influence the party’s appeal and electoral success.
– **Relevance**: True. A direct impact on the election outcome potentially affecting the number of seats won.
6. **Fact**: Discussions are arising about the impact of a possible Trump return to the U.S. presidency on Canada.
– **Correctness**: True. Given Trump’s significance in international politics, discussions often arise around his potential impacts.
– **Importance**: Lesser. U.S.-Canada relations are significant but are not directly determining factors for Canadian federal election seat distribution.
– **Relevance**: False. Although interesting, it does not have a direct impact on the number of seats the Conservative Party will win.
In conclusion, while the facts within the summary touch on various political dynamics, only a few are directly relevant and important to the question of how many seats the Conservative Party will win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election.
Fact-checked summary:
Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party is broadening its campaign agenda, which is a true fact with important implications for the party’s appeal and election success. Broadening the campaign agenda can directly impact the number of seats the Conservative Party might win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election.
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”: 0.35, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.2, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.1, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.4, “more than 240”: 0.15] – confidence: 7)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 6
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 26%
* between 172 and 205: 42%
* between 206 and 240: 21%
* more than 240: 11%
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The reasoning across the various AI analyses highlights several key factors influencing the potential outcomes for the Conservative Party in upcoming elections. Historical data indicates that the Conservatives have consistently gained 99 to 166 seats in recent elections, suggesting a reliable base range. Current polling suggests a lead for the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre, who is attempting to broaden the party’s appeal. However, structural challenges persist, particularly in Quebec and urban centers, and the political landscape’s unpredictability could shift the trajectory significantly. The analyses converge on the expectation that the Conservatives might achieve moderate gains, potentially securing between 172 and 205 seats, although a more optimistic range of 206 to 240 seats is considered possible. Various factors could derail these predictions, including shifts in polling, regional dynamics, and unforeseen events, which underline the inherent uncertainty in election forecasting.
Runtime for both questions: 139 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).
