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, 5%, down from 10% last week.
Obtaining our outside newsfeed from various sources. Here’s a summary of the recent developments regarding the US Steel-Nippon Steel merger situation:
Most Recent Updates (within last 24 hours): The Biden administration has delayed enforcement of its order blocking the Nippon Steel-US Steel merger until mid-June 2024. This extension gives the companies more time to pursue their legal challenge against the administration’s decision.
Key Background: – On January 3rd, 2024, President Biden blocked Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.9 billion acquisition of US Steel citing national security concerns.
– In response, both companies filed lawsuits on January 8th against the Biden administration, claiming the decision was politically motivated rather than based on legitimate national security concerns.
– The lawsuit alleges that Biden’s administration “ignored the rule of law” and rejected the merger primarily to curry favor with the United Steelworkers union.
Current Status:
– Nippon Steel has stated they have no “Plan B” alternative to the blocked merger and are fully committed to pursuing the original deal through legal channels.
– While this situation has created some tension, both US and Japanese officials maintain that broader bilateral relations remain strong.
– The case is currently pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with the companies arguing that the blocking of the deal violated their due process rights.
The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for future foreign investment in US strategic industries and US-Japan economic relations.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“In recent developments concerning the proposed merger between US Steel and Nippon Steel, the Biden administration has postponed the enforcement of its order blocking the $14.9 billion acquisition until mid-June 2024. This delay offers both companies additional time to challenge the decision legally, which they claim was driven by political motives rather than genuine national security concerns. The companies assert that the administration’s stance ignores the rule of law and was intended to appease the United Steelworkers union. Despite the tensions surrounding the issue, both Japanese and US officials assert that the broader bilateral relations remain unaffected. The case, pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is poised to have significant implications for foreign investment in US strategic sectors and economic ties between the US and Japan.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts stated in the summary, along with an analysis of their correctness, importance to resolving the question, and relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact**: The Biden administration has postponed the enforcement of its order blocking the $14.9 billion acquisition until mid-June 2024.
– **Correctness**: True, based on the information in the summary (assuming external consistency but needs verification).
– **Importance**: Important, as the timing of the administration’s actions could directly influence when (or if) the merger is announced.
– **Relevance**: True, because understanding the timeline of regulatory actions is crucial to assessing the probability of announcement before January 21, 2025.
2. **Fact**: The merger is valued at $14.9 billion.
– **Correctness**: True, based on the information in the summary (assuming external consistency but needs verification).
– **Importance**: Lesser importance, as the exact valuation does not directly influence the timing of the announcement.
– **Relevance**: True, it provides background context to the scale of the merger.
3. **Fact**: The delay offers both companies additional time to challenge the decision legally.
– **Correctness**: True, assuming the delay allows for legal challenges as stated.
– **Importance**: Important, because legal challenges could affect the likelihood and timing of the merger’s announcement.
– **Relevance**: True, as it impacts the potential resolution timeline.
4. **Fact**: US Steel and Nippon Steel claim the decision was driven by political motives rather than genuine national security concerns.
– **Correctness**: True, as this is a stated claim by the companies (internal consistency).
– **Importance**: Lesser importance, as it represents the companies’ perspective, but doesn’t directly influence the timing of the announcement.
– **Relevance**: True, it provides insight into the companies’ legal strategy and potential arguments in court.
5. **Fact**: The administration’s stance is alleged to ignore the rule of law and was intended to appease the United Steelworkers union.
– **Correctness**: True, as this is attributed to the companies’ claim (internal consistency).
– **Importance**: Lesser importance, as it’s a claim about motives and doesn’t affect timing directly.
– **Relevance**: True, understanding motivations could inform predictions about potential outcomes or delays.
6. **Fact**: Both Japanese and US officials assert that broader bilateral relations remain unaffected.
– **Correctness**: True, as the statement is attributed to officials (assuming external consistency but needs verification).
– **Importance**: Unimportant, as broader bilateral relations do not impact the timing of the merger announcement.
– **Relevance**: False, as this fact is irrelevant to predicting when the merger might be announced.
7. **Fact**: The case is pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
– **Correctness**: True, assuming the jurisdiction as stated is accurate (assuming external consistency but needs verification).
– **Importance**: Critical, as the court’s decision is likely a determining factor in whether the merger can be announced.
– **Relevance**: True, as the legal proceedings are directly related to the outcome of the merger announcement timetable.
8. **Fact**: The case has significant implications for foreign investment in US strategic sectors and economic ties between the US and Japan.
– **Correctness**: True, based on the implications suggested (assuming external consistency but needs verification).
– **Importance**: Lesser importance, as implications are more about the impact rather than the timing of the merger announcement.
– **Relevance**: False, as implications for broader issues do not affect the likelihood of the announcement before January 21, 2025.
Overall, to predict the likelihood of the merger being announced before January 21, 2025, the most important and relevant facts are those related to the delay of the administration’s order and the legal status of the case.
Fact-checked summary: To assess the probability of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025, key facts are noteworthy: The Biden administration has postponed the enforcement of its order blocking the $14.9 billion acquisition until mid-June 2024. This delay is important because it impacts the potential timeline for the merger’s announcement by providing additional time for legal challenges. The case is currently pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a critical aspect as the court’s decision could directly influence whether and when the merger can occur. These regulatory and legal factors are crucial in evaluating the likelihood of the merger announcement before the specified date.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.05. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
To derive the base rate, we considered the historical frequency of large mergers successfully navigating regulatory challenges within a compressed timeline. Past similar mergers often faced protracted legal battles, especially with antitrust implications. Given that it’s already January 13, 2025, and the Biden administration postponed enforcement of a blocking order until mid-June 2024, it’s unlikely all necessary events will align in about a week. Legal proceedings often extend longer than planned, and companies typically need time to reassess and finalize the deal post-approval, considering regulatory concerns.
Some potential divergent considerations that might effect the base rate: Factors that might increase the likelihood could include an unexpected expedited ruling by the court favoring the merger, or a significant policy shift from the administration or court permitting faster resolution. Additionally, backdoor negotiations resulting in quick adjustments could allow an announcement, but these are improbable given the current standing regulatory posture and time constraints.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issues a decision or ruling in favor of allowing the merger to proceed before January 21, 2025. Likelihood: Unlikely.
– The Biden administration or other regulatory bodies decide not to pursue further legal actions to block the merger following the court’s decision, allowing the merger to be announced. Likelihood: Very unlikely.
– US Steel and Nippon Steel finalize and agree on terms of the merger, ready to announce it immediately upon receiving the clearance. Likelihood: Unlikely.
– All necessary internal corporate approvals and resolutions required for the merger announcement are pre-cleared and ready by the companies involved. Likelihood: Unlikely.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 8)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.02 – confidence: 7)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 3)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.05
Base rate: 0.05 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.01
Confidence: 7
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.01
Reverse Mellers: 0.13
Theory of Mind: 0.1 (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: 0.05
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The likelihood of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025, is considered very low due to several significant hurdles and time constraints. Key factors include the extremely short remaining timeframe of only 8 days, the fact that the case is still pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the regulatory enforcement postponement until June 2024 by the Biden administration. Historical precedent indicates such large mergers face long regulatory processes, further complicating the necessary approvals and legal clearances required. Despite this, scenarios such as expedited court rulings, unexpected policy changes, or pre-prepared announcements could potentially expedite the merger’s announcement, though these are seen as low-probability and extraordinary occurrences.
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, 25%, up from last week’s 10%. [Botmaster Jeremy says “Dockworkers is high because OpenAI messed up on the base rate calculation. It gave 0.9, but I think meant that there’s a 0.9 probability that there won’t be a strike.]
Obtaining our outside newsfeed from various sources. Based on the recent news articles, here’s a summary of the port workers’ strike situation:
On January 8, 2025, a potentially devastating port strike was averted when the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing about 45,000 dock workers on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, reached a tentative agreement with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) on a new six-year master contract. This agreement came after renewed negotiations that began on January 7th.
This was the second potential strike threat in recent months, following a brief work stoppage in October 2024. The key issues in the negotiations included concerns about automation at ports and job security for workers. The ILA has been particularly worried about the impact of automated systems on dockworker employment.
The successful resolution of these negotiations is significant for the U.S. supply chain, as a strike would have affected major ports along the Eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast, potentially causing significant disruptions to the nation’s commerce and trade. The agreement helps maintain stability in the maritime shipping industry, which handles a substantial portion of U.S. international trade through its ports.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “A potential port strike involving approximately 45,000 dock workers was averted on January 8, 2025, when the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) reached a tentative six-year master contract agreement. This followed negotiations that began on January 7th and addressed key issues, including automation and job security concerns. The resolution is particularly significant for the U.S. supply chain, as a strike could have disrupted major ports on the East and Gulf Coasts, affecting national commerce and trade. It’s important to note that the news may contain unverified claims.”
Fact-checking news summary: Below is a list of specific facts derived from the summary. I have assessed each fact for internal and external consistency, its importance to the resolution of the question, and its relevance to the outcome.
1. **Fact:** A port strike involving approximately 45,000 dock workers was averted on January 8, 2025.
– **True/False:** True (Assuming the information provided in the summary reflects actual events; there is no contradiction in details).
– **Importance:** Critical.
– **Relevance:** True.
2. **Fact:** The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) reached a tentative six-year master contract agreement on January 8, 2025.
– **True/False:** True (Assuming no misrepresentation or misinformation; both the ILA and USMX are legitimate entities involved in such negotiations).
– **Importance:** Critical.
– **Relevance:** True.
3. **Fact:** The negotiations for the agreement began on January 7th, 2025.
– **True/False:** True (Internally consistent with the timeline provided; seems plausible although requires external verification).
– **Importance:** Important.
– **Relevance:** True.
4. **Fact:** Key issues addressed in the negotiations included automation and job security concerns.
– **True/False:** True (No direct contradiction; automation and job security concerns are common in such negotiations).
– **Importance:** Important.
– **Relevance:** True.
5. **Fact:** A strike would have disrupted major ports on the East and Gulf Coasts, affecting national commerce and trade.
– **True/False:** True (Logical consequence of a port strike; historically consistent with similar labor disputes).
– **Importance:** Important.
– **Relevance:** True.
6. **Fact:** The resolution of the negotiations is significant for the U.S. supply chain.
– **True/False:** True (This is a reasonable inference given past impacts of port strikes on supply chains).
– **Importance:** Important.
– **Relevance:** True.
7. **Fact:** The news may contain unverified claims.
– **True/False:** True (General cautionary statement; does not pertain to a specific fact within the summary).
– **Importance:** Lesser importance.
– **Relevance:** True (Raises awareness of possible misinformation).
In summary, most facts presented are internally consistent and likely reflect true circumstances. Each fact is relevant to understanding the likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025 given that a master contract has been agreed upon. Resolution of these elements minimizes immediate strike risk, making the probability of striking lower.
Fact-checked summary: A potential port strike involving approximately 45,000 dock workers was averted on January 8, 2025, when the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) reached a tentative six-year master contract agreement. These negotiations addressed key issues such as automation and job security, which are common concerns in such discussions. A strike would have significantly disrupted major ports on the East and Gulf Coasts, affecting national commerce and trade, underscoring the importance of resolving the negotiations to maintain stability in the U.S. supply chain. The fact that a master contract has been agreed upon reduces the immediate risk of a strike in Q1 2025.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.9. [Editor’s note: this base rate appears to be erroneous, given the bot’s explanation below.] The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate is set high because a tentative agreement has already been reached between ILA and USMX. Historically, a high percentage of tentative agreements are ratified given the effort put into reaching them and the potential negative impact of strikes. In this context, the final ratification is expected as it stabilizes worker conditions and benefits. Further, there is a strong incentive to maintain stability in the supply chain, as evidenced by the efforts to avert the strike.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: However, it is important to consider the possibility of dissent within the rank-and-file members of the union, who might have concerns that were not addressed in the tentative agreement. Additionally, should any unforeseen economic or political changes arise, they could alter the dynamics and lead to a different outcome. For instance, if the broader economic situation worsens, it could affect negotiations or the willingness of parties to compromise, potentially derailing the agreement.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Final ratification of the tentative six-year master contract agreement by union members. very likely
– Continued cooperation and compromise between the ILA and USMX leadership without any major disagreements or disputes. likely
– No unexpected major external factors (e.g., economic downturn, political intervention, major policy changes) that could disrupt the agreement. likely
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 7)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.2 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 7)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.15
Base rate: 0.9 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
Confidence: 7
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.07
Reverse Mellers: 0.24
Theory of Mind: 0.25 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 1
Close Type: C (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.24
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025 appears low based on several key indicators. A tentative master contract agreement was recently reached and historically, such agreements tend to be ratified without leading to strikes due to the involved parties’ willingness to negotiate and compromise. The resolution of major issues like automation and job security further lowers strike probability. However, potential risks remain, such as the contentious nature of automation discussions, potential internal dissent from union members, unforeseen economic or political changes, and reliance on historical patterns that may not reflect current dynamics. Thus, while current conditions favor stability, elements of unpredictability still exist.
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: 20%
* between 172 and 205: 45%
* between 206 and 240: 30%
* more than 240: 5%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the key developments in Canadian politics:
The Conservative Party of Canada, led by Pierre Poilievre, is currently surging in popularity while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party is facing declining support. Trudeau recently announced he will step down before the next election, which is expected in 2025. The Conservative Party is campaigning on several key promises, including:
– A pledge to “defund” the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
– Opposition to carbon taxes, with Poilievre calling for an “axe the tax” election
– Addressing cost of living concerns that have resonated with many Canadians
The upcoming election is being framed as a critical juncture for several major policy areas, particularly climate policy and the carbon tax. The carbon tax, once considered a signature achievement for the Liberals, has become a political liability as conservatives campaign against it. The election will also have significant implications for public broadcasting, given the Conservatives’ promise to defund the CBC.
Most recent polling and analysis suggests the Conservatives under Poilievre have built a substantial lead over the governing Liberals, who will need to select a new leader to replace Trudeau before the election. The political dynamics appear to be shifting in Canada, with cost of living issues and opposition to carbon taxes emerging as major campaign themes that could determine the outcome of the 2025 vote.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“Recent reports on Canadian politics suggest a shift in public sentiment, with the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, experiencing a rise in popularity, while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party is seeing a decline. Trudeau has announced his intention to step down before the anticipated 2025 election, necessitating a new leader for the Liberals. Key issues in the upcoming election include the Conservatives’ pledge to cut funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and their opposition to carbon taxes, highlighted by Poilievre’s “axe the tax” stance. The election is viewed as a pivotal moment for Canadian policy, particularly concerning climate policy and cost of living concerns, which are gaining traction with voters. Current polling suggests the Conservatives have opened a noteworthy lead, with the potential to reshape Canada’s political landscape, though these reports should be viewed cautiously as they may contain unverified claims.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here are the specific facts from the summary, along with an evaluation of their correctness, importance, and relevance to the question:
1. **Fact**: The Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, is experiencing a rise in popularity, while the Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau, is seeing a decline.
– **Correctness**: True, based on recent polling data and political analysis reports as of the latest available information.
– **Importance**: Important. This indicates a potential increase in the number of seats the Conservative Party may win.
– **Relevance**: True. The popularity of the Conservative Party is directly relevant to how many seats they might win.
2. **Fact**: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced his intention to step down before the anticipated 2025 election.
– **Correctness**: False or unverifiable within the public domain as of the latest updates. There hasn’t been an official announcement confirming this.
– **Importance**: Important. Leadership change within the Liberal Party could impact their performance in the election.
– **Relevance**: True. A change in leadership could influence the outcome of the federal parliamentary election and affect Conservative seat counts indirectly.
3. **Fact**: The Conservatives have pledged to cut funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and oppose carbon taxes, highlighted by Poilievre’s “axe the tax” stance.
– **Correctness**: True. These positions align with the current Conservative policy statements.
– **Importance**: Important. Policy positions influence voter behavior and election outcomes.
– **Relevance**: True. These issues are significant points in the Conservative platform, affecting their electoral prospects.
4. **Fact**: The election is viewed as a pivotal moment for Canadian policy, particularly concerning climate policy and cost of living concerns, which are gaining traction with voters.
– **Correctness**: True. These are currently significant issues within Canadian political discourse.
– **Importance**: Important. These issues could determine voter priorities, impacting how many seats the Conservatives may win.
– **Relevance**: True. Voter concerns about these topics could directly affect electoral outcomes.
5. **Fact**: Current polling suggests the Conservatives have opened a noteworthy lead, with the potential to reshape Canada’s political landscape.
– **Correctness**: True, based on credible polling agencies and political analysis reports.
– **Importance**: Critical. This directly answers the question about the potential number of seats the Conservative Party may win.
– **Relevance**: True. Polling data is a direct indicator of potential election outcomes related to seat counts.
6. **Fact**: Reports should be viewed cautiously as they may contain unverified claims.
– **Correctness**: True. Caution is always advisable with pre-election polling and reports.
– **Importance**: Important. This fact highlights the need for critical assessment of current predictions.
– **Relevance**: True. The accuracy of information affects confidence in forecasts about Conservative seat gains.
Fact-checked summary: Recent polling data indicates that the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, is experiencing a rise in popularity, while the Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau, is seeing a decline. This increase in popularity suggests a potential rise in the number of seats the Conservative Party may win in the next federal parliamentary election. The Conservatives have also pledged policies like cutting funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and opposing carbon taxes, which could influence voter behavior and their electoral prospects. Current polling suggests that the Conservatives have opened a noteworthy lead, highlighting a potential to reshape Canada’s political landscape, which is critical in answering questions regarding the number of seats they might secure. Additionally, climate policy and cost of living concerns are pivotal issues that resonate with voters and could determine their priorities, impacting the election outcome. It is important to approach reports with caution, as they may contain unverified claims, and accuracy is essential for confidence in predictions about Conservative seat gains.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.35, “between 172 and 205”: 0.45, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.05, “between 172 and 205”: 0.6, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.2, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.15] – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 6
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.2
* between 172 and 205: 0.45
* between 206 and 240: 0.3
* more than 240: 0.05
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI
A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, is experiencing increased popularity according to current polling, gaining a significant lead over Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party. Key issues driving this trend include the Conservatives’ opposition to carbon taxes and their stance on defunding the CBC, which may resonate with voters facing cost of living challenges. However, there is caution about relying too heavily on these poll results, as Canadian election outcomes can be unpredictable due to factors like campaign dynamics, regional influences, and potential political developments such as new scandals or economic changes. Furthermore, the first-past-the-post election system and timing of the election could also impact the accuracy of these predictions. While the current lead in the polls suggests that the Conservatives might gain more seats than in previous elections, predicting a major political shift remains uncertain.
Runtime for all forecasts on this page: 184 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).