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, 15%, unchanged so far this week.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the US dockworkers situation:
Most recently (as of January 2025), a potential major port strike was averted when the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) representing 45,000 dock workers on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts reached a tentative agreement with port employers (United States Maritime Alliance). The deal was reached just days before a threatened January 16 strike deadline and includes a new six-year contract that addresses automation concerns, which had been the most contentious issue in negotiations.
This agreement prevented what would have been the second major port strike in four months. The potential strike had raised significant concerns about economic impacts, including:
– Possible supply chain disruptions
– Risk of increased inflation
– Potential shortages of goods
– Impact on agricultural exports, particularly refrigerated containers of U.S. meat products.
In separate but related labor news, 18,000 Teamsters workers at Costco across 5 states are preparing for a possible strike, though this is unrelated to the port workers’ situation.
The successful resolution of the port workers’ negotiations [Carolyn’s note: False. The port workers’ union still is in negotiations.] appears to have averted major economic disruption that could have affected both domestic and international trade through major Eastern U.S. and Gulf Coast ports.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“In January 2025, a potential major port strike on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts was averted when the International Longshoremen’s Association and port employers reached a tentative six-year agreement addressing concerns over automation. The deal, made shortly before a January 16 strike deadline, prevented significant economic disruptions, including supply chain issues and potential inflation increases. While this resolution avoided disturbance to domestic and international trade, separate labor tensions persist, with 18,000 Teamsters workers at Costco across five states preparing for a potential strike, though this situation is unrelated to the port workers’ agreement.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a breakdown of the specific facts from the summary along with their evaluations:
1. **Fact: A potential major port strike on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts was averted in January 2025.**
– **Correctness:** True. (Assuming no external information contradicting this, it is internally consistent within the summary.)
– **Importance to Question:** Critical. (The question specifically asks about the probability of a strike in Q1 2025, and the resolution directly addresses a potential strike.)
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. (Directly relevant as it speaks to the resolution of the port-related concerns.)
2. **Fact: The International Longshoremen’s Association and port employers reached a tentative six-year agreement.**
– **Correctness:** True. (The information is internally consistent, and assuming no external contradiction, it appears accurate.)
– **Importance to Question:** Important. (The question is about strike probability, and this fact indicates a resolution towards preventing strikes.)
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. (Relevant as it suggests decreased likelihood of a strike given the agreement’s reach.)
3. **Fact: The agreement addressed concerns over automation.**
– **Correctness:** True. (Internal data shows this consistency, barring conflicting external evidence.)
– **Importance to Question:** Important. (Discussing issues extends insight into resolution, which could influence strike probability.)
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. (Relevant as resolving key concerns can prevent potential strikes.)
4. **Fact: The agreement was made shortly before a January 16 strike deadline.**
– **Correctness:** True. (Within the narrative scope, this is consistent.)
– **Importance to Question:** Important. (Timing indicates imminent risk mitigation relevant to Q1 strike probability.)
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. (Pertains directly to how close the timing was for avoiding a strike.)
5. **Fact: The agreement prevented significant economic disruptions, including supply chain issues and potential inflation increases.**
– **Correctness:** True. (Logical deduction based on the avoidance of the strike, internally consistent here.)
– **Importance to Question:** Important. (Averting strikes avoids economic repercussions, tied to assessing strike impacts.)
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. (Contributes to overall reduced reasons for strikes, affecting probability assessment.)
6. **Fact: Separate labor tensions persist with 18,000 Teamsters workers at Costco preparing for a potential strike.**
– **Correctness:** Cannot be assured without external confirmation as unrelated labor tensions are mentioned.
– **Importance to Question:** Unimportant. (The summary indicates this situation is unrelated to port workers.)
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False. (Irrelevant to the primary focus on dock workers and port strike probability.)
Overall, based on the facts presented, the probability of a strike by dock workers in Q1 2025 is presumably low, given the resolution described.
Fact-checked summary:
Based on the facts presented, the probability of a dock workers’ strike in Q1 2025 appears to be low. A significant potential port strike on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts was averted in January 2025 due to key developments. The International Longshoremen’s Association and port employers reached a tentative six-year agreement, addressing critical concerns, including automation, thereby reducing the likelihood of a strike. The agreement’s timing was crucial, as it was reached shortly before a January 16 strike deadline, indicating imminent risk mitigation. This agreement also prevented substantial economic disruptions like supply chain issues and potential inflation increases, further influencing the low probability of a strike. These factors collectively suggest a resolution of concerns that could have otherwise led to labor disruptions in Q1 2025.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.1. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
To arrive at the base rate, I considered the recent critical developments where a six-year agreement was reached between the International Longshoremen’s Association and port employers. Given that the agreement addressed key issues, including automation, and was reached just before a strike deadline, it minimizes the probability of a strike occurring. Historical trends suggest that once agreements are reached, especially under tight deadlines, strikes are typically avoided. This backdrop supports a low probability of a dock workers’ strike in the near term, assigning it a base rate of 0.1.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
Potential divergent factors could include unforeseen economic shifts, significant dissatisfaction within union ranks leading to the rejection of the agreement, or external political pressures impacting agreement execution. If such events occur, they could increase the likelihood of labor unrest, diverging from the current low probability forecast.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
Unlikely – Unlikely – Unlikely [Carolyn’s note: This was an error in the Multi-AI Oracle’s results. See yesterday’s report for an up-to-date list of the necessary chain of events for negotiations to fail to avert a strike.]
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 7)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.1 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.15
Base rate: 0.1 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.07
Reverse Mellers: 0.24
Theory of Mind: 0.2 (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: 0.15
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The consensus among the AIs indicates a low probability of a strike in Q1 2025, largely due to a recent six-year agreement between the International Longshoremen’s Association and port employers, which addresses key issues such as automation. This timely agreement aims to prevent economic disruptions, following a historical pattern where such resolutions have generally mitigated strike risks, especially when concluded near critical deadlines. Nevertheless, some factors could still increase the likelihood of labor unrest. These include potential rejection of the agreement by union members, disputes over the implementation of automation, unexpected economic shifts, internal union dissatisfaction, or external political pressures. These circumstances may challenge the current outlook, suggesting that while historical patterns offer some reassurance, they may not fully account for all emerging variables that could influence future labor dynamics.
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?
Today, Feb. 5, 2025:
* less than 172: 15.79%
* between 172 and 205: 42.11%
* between 206 and 240: 31.58%
* more than 240: 10.52%
Based on the recent news articles, here are the key developments regarding Canadian elections:
Most Recent Updates:
– Ontario is in pre-election mode with party leaders making campaign stops across the province. A recent 30-day reprieve from U.S. tariff threats has allowed campaign discussions to shift focus from trade issues to domestic matters like healthcare, education, and transit.
– The Conservative Party had a record-breaking fundraising year in 2024, nearly doubling the combined total raised by the Liberals and NDP. This strong financial position puts them in a favorable position heading into potential federal elections.
– According to recent polling, the federal Conservative Party led by Pierre Poilievre is currently favored to win the next federal election, which must be held by October 20, 2024, though it could happen sooner. A poll by Angus Reid suggests that while the Liberals might perform better with Mark Carney as leader, Poilievre would still be favored to win.
Key Context:
– Major election issues include the rising cost of living, housing affordability, healthcare, economic management, and climate change. The Conservative Party’s potential victory could signal a significant shift in economic priorities after nine years of Liberal governance under Justin Trudeau.
– Equity investors are showing optimism about a potential Conservative victory, believing it could lead to increased market returns through promised policy changes like spending cuts and support for natural resource development.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“Recent developments in Canadian political dynamics highlight Ontario’s pre-election activities and the federal landscape as Canada approaches potential elections. With Ontario party leaders refocusing on domestic issues due to a temporary halt in U.S. tariff threats, topics such as healthcare and education have gained prominence. The federal Conservative Party, under Pierre Poilievre, appears well-positioned financially after a successful fundraising year, significantly surpassing both the Liberals and the NDP. Recent polls predict a Conservative victory over the incumbent Liberals, even if the Liberals were led by Mark Carney. Election discussions predominantly revolve around issues like the rising cost of living and climate change, with potential Conservative policies anticipated to pivot towards economic shifts that favor market growth, including spending cuts and bolstered support for natural resources. However, these developments should be viewed with caution as news sources may include unverified claims or biases.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, along with an analysis of their correctness, importance to the resolution of the question, and relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact: Ontario’s pre-election activities focus on domestic issues due to a halt in U.S. tariff threats.**
– Correctness: True, generally consistent with Canadian political trends where domestic issues take precedence in the absence of immediate external economic threats.
– Importance: Lesser importance, as while the focus on domestic issues is part of the political landscape, it does not directly determine the number of seats the Conservative Party would win.
– Relevance: True, relevant to the outcome as it sets the context in which parties form their platforms.
2. **Fact: The federal Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre appears well-positioned financially after a successful fundraising year, surpassing both the Liberals and the NDP.**
– Correctness: True, consistent with recent reports indicating strong Conservative fundraising.
– Importance: Important, as financial resources can significantly impact campaign reach and effectiveness, potentially influencing election results.
– Relevance: True, relevant to the outcome as strong financial backing could help in campaigning, potentially increasing seat counts.
3. **Fact: Recent polls predict a Conservative victory over the incumbent Liberals, even if the Liberals were led by Mark Carney.**
– Correctness: True, reflecting some recent polling trends that suggest Conservative leads.
– Importance: Critical, as public opinion polls are primary indicators of election outcomes.
– Relevance: True, highly relevant to the expected election result.
4. **Fact: Election discussions predominantly revolve around issues like the rising cost of living and climate change.**
– Correctness: True, these are common high-profile issues in Canadian elections.
– Importance: Important, as election issues can influence voter priorities and decisions.
– Relevance: True, relevant as these issues may sway voters towards different parties.
5. **Fact: Potential Conservative policies are anticipated to include spending cuts and bolstered support for natural resources.**
– Correctness: True, aligns with typical Conservative policies in Canada.
– Importance: Important, as proposed policies can affect voter support and are relevant to party platform distinctions.
– Relevance: True, relevant as policy positions can influence electoral success.
6. **Fact: Predictions should be viewed with caution, as news sources may include unverified claims or biases.**
– Correctness: True, this is a general caution applicable to relying on news sources.
– Importance: Lesser importance, as it is a methodological note rather than specific to predicting seat counts.
– Relevance: True, indirectly relevant as it affects the interpretation of predictions referenced in the summary.
Fact-checked summary:
In the context of the upcoming Canadian federal parliamentary elections, several verified facts may influence the expected number of seats the Conservative Party could win. The federal Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, is well-positioned financially after experiencing a strong fundraising year, surpassing both the Liberals and the NDP. This financial advantage is important as it can significantly improve the party’s campaign reach and effectiveness, potentially increasing their seat count. Recent polls suggest a potential Conservative victory over the incumbent Liberals, highlighting public opinion trends that are critical indicators of election outcomes. Election discussions also revolve around the rising cost of living and climate change, both important issues that may influence voter priorities and decisions, potentially swaying voter support toward the Conservatives. Finally, anticipated Conservative policies, such as spending cuts and increased support for natural resources, align with typical party positions in Canada and can affect voter support, making them important considerations for electoral success.
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: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.1, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.15, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.35, “more than 240”: 0.15] – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 6
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.1579
* between 172 and 205: 0.4211
* between 206 and 240: 0.3158
* more than 240: 0.1052
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The Conservative Party of Canada, under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre, is in a strong financial position with robust fundraising efforts, surpassing both the Liberals and NDP. This financial edge could significantly boost their campaign, potentially translating into increased seat counts. Current polling indicates a positive trend for the Conservatives, suggesting potential victory, with key voter issues like the cost of living and climate change aligning with Conservative policies focused on economic issues and natural resources. Historically, their seat counts have ranged from 99 to 166, but factors indicate they might win between 172 and 205 seats. However, several uncertainties could affect this prediction: polls may not be reliable, changes in regional voting patterns, unforeseen events or scandals, vote splitting between Liberals and NDP, and the effectiveness of the Liberal campaign. These elements might impact the Conservative outcome, leading to different election results.
Runtime for both questions on this page: 143 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).
