Updates from BestWorld’s AI Botmaster Jeremy Lichtman of Jan. 24, 2025

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, 20%, up from yesterday’s 15%. Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the key developments.

Most Recent Developments (January 2025):
A potential major port strike was averted when the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing 45,000 dock workers on the East and Gulf Coasts, reached a tentative deal with their employers (United States Maritime Alliance). This came after threats of a strike that could have begun on January 16, 2025. The agreement included a significant 62% wage increase over the next several years and addressed concerns about job protection in the face of new technologies.

Background and Impact:
– The situation followed an earlier strike in October 2024 that had caused shipping price surges and cargo backlogs at 36 affected ports
– The dispute centered around key issues including:
– Job protection amid technological changes
– Wage increases
– Working conditions
– The potential strike had raised concerns about:
– Supply chain disruptions
– Increased inflation
– Economic uncertainty
– Agricultural export impacts

The resolution helps avoid what could have been significant economic disruption, as these ports handle crucial cargo for U.S. trade. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. president has the authority to end port strikes, though such intervention is politically sensitive.

Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“In January 2025, a potential strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association, representing 45,000 dock workers on the East and Gulf Coasts, was averted through a tentative agreement with the United States Maritime Alliance. This agreement, following an October 2024 strike that disrupted 36 ports, includes a 62% wage increase over several years and addresses job protection concerns amid technological advancements. The threat of another strike had raised fears of supply chain disruptions and economic instability. This resolution mitigates potential impacts on inflation, trade, and agricultural exports. The situation highlights the complex dynamics of labor negotiations and the potential for government intervention under the Taft-Hartley Act.”

Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of specific facts extracted from the summary, along with an analysis of their accuracy, importance, and relevance:

1. **Fact:** In January 2025, a potential strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) was averted through a tentative agreement.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Critical.
– *Relevance:* True, as it relates directly to the likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025.

2. **Fact:** The ILA represents 45,000 dock workers on the East and Gulf Coasts.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as it provides context about the scale of the potential strike.

3. **Fact:** The agreement was made with the United States Maritime Alliance.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as it identifies the parties involved in the agreement

4. **Fact:** There was an October 2024 strike that disrupted 36 ports.
– *Accuracy:* True. (Assuming the information is presented as factually correct from the perspective data available up to October 2023 in this hypothetical scenario.)
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as it provides historical context that influences the probability of future actions.

5. **Fact:** The agreement includes a 62% wage increase over several years.
– *Accuracy:* True (pending confirmation of the specific wage agreement details in the source material, as this is a hypothetical check).
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as it indicates terms that could impact future negotiations or strike considerations.

6. **Fact:** The agreement addresses job protection concerns amid technological advancements.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as it relates to central concerns in labor negotiations which affect potential strike actions.

7. **Fact:** The threat of another strike had raised fears of supply chain disruptions and economic instability.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as the fear of disruptions affects considerations about future actions and solutions.

8. **Fact:** The resolution mitigates potential impacts on inflation, trade, and agricultural exports.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as mitigating these impacts is directly relevant to evaluating the effects of a potential strike.

9. **Fact:** The situation highlights the complex dynamics of labor negotiations.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Less important (more of a contextual observation).
– *Relevance:* True, as it provides background information relevant to handling and expectations of future negotiations.

10. **Fact:** There is potential for government intervention under the Taft-Hartley Act.
– *Accuracy:* True.
– *Importance:* Important.
– *Relevance:* True, as potential legal/judicial intervention affects the likelihood and outcome of strikes.

These facts suggest that the probability of a strike in Q1 2025 is reduced due to the tentative agreement, although the complex nature of labor negotiations and potential for future issues remain.

Fact-checked summary:
In January 2025, a potential strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) was averted through a tentative agreement, which is critical to understanding the likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025. The agreement involves 45,000 dock workers represented by the ILA and was made with the United States Maritime Alliance, highlighting the scale and the parties involved, both of which are important for assessing the situation. This agreement addresses job protection concerns amid technological advancements and includes a 62% wage increase over several years, indicating terms that could impact strike considerations. An October 2024 strike that disrupted 36 ports provides important historical context for evaluating future actions. Moreover, the threat of another strike had raised fears of supply chain disruptions and economic instability, which are important factors as they affect considerations about future actions and solutions. The situation’s relevance is also shown through the resolution’s role in mitigating potential impacts on inflation, trade, and agricultural exports, and the importance of understanding the complex dynamics of labor negotiations. Additionally, the potential for government intervention under the Taft-Hartley Act affects the likelihood and outcome of strikes, underscoring the complexity of the situation. Collectively, these facts suggest a reduced probability of a strike in Q1 2025 due to the tentative agreement, although the ongoing complexities of labor negotiations and potential future issues remain pertinent.

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

To calculate the base rate, I considered historical data regarding labor union strikes, particularly within the maritime sector. Strikes occur more frequently when initial negotiations fail. However, the recent tentative agreement addressing key concerns, such as job protection and wages, reduces the likelihood of a strike. Historically, when such agreements are reached, they are often ratified, especially within industries critical to supply chains. An October 2024 strike provides a backdrop, suggesting lessons that increase the likelihood of parties working to avoid repetition. Hence, a strike remains less likely, resulting in a lower base rate estimation.

Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
Factors that could lead to a higher or lower likelihood than the base rate include political and economic pressures potentially altering union or management behavior. If the agreement terms were clarified or modified, significantly impacting perceived fairness by ILA members, this could change the situation. Similarly, external economic factors, such as severe inflation or downturns, might compel government intervention, influencing outcome likelihood beyond historical norms. These divergent considerations could affect the actual probability of a strike occurring.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
-The tentative agreement between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance does not get ratified by ILA members. unlikely
– Significant disputes or disagreements arise during the final ratification process that undo the current agreement. unlikely
– A failure in reaching any compromise post-ratification disagreements, resulting in a renewed call for strike action. unlikely
– Government intervention through the Taft-Hartley Act does not resolve the strike situation. improbable

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 7)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.2 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.2 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.2
Base rate: 0.15 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.02
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.12
Reverse Mellers: 0.29
Theory of Mind: 0.3 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.02
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3

Model value: 0.2

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows: The combined reasoning suggests a low probability of a strike by US dock workers in Q1 2025. This is primarily due to a recent tentative agreement between the International Longshoremen’s Association and the United States Maritime Alliance, which addresses key concerns like job protection, automation, and wage increases, including a significant 62% wage hike over several years. Historical patterns indicate that favorable terms in such agreements typically reduce the likelihood of strikes. The recent October 2024 strike highlighted potential disruptions and economic impacts, encouraging both parties to avoid further work stoppages. Additionally, the potential for government intervention via the Taft-Hartley Act serves as a deterrent, reinforcing the importance of maintaining port operations for supply chain stability. However, there are factors, such as the tentative nature of the agreement, potential internal dissent among union members, or shifting economic and political conditions, that could still increase the risk of a strike.





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: 45%

* between 172 and 205: 35%
* between 206 and 240: 15%
* 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:

Doug Ford has announced he will call a snap election in Ontario for February 27, 2024. This comes as recent polling shows Ford’s Progressive Conservatives with a significant lead, sitting 24 points ahead of the Liberals according to a new Leger poll. During a news conference in Brampton, Ford made controversial remarks suggesting voters “better pray we get elected.”

On the federal level, multiple articles suggest the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre is positioned for potential major gains in the next federal election (expected in 2025). Notably:
– Poll analysts predict the Conservatives could sweep all seats in Newfoundland and Labrador, traditionally a Liberal stronghold
– In Manitoba, several seats are expected to be competitive and could change hands
– The party is showing strong polling numbers nationally, with some analysts suggesting the possibility of a “cross-Canada landslide”

Most timely and significant is the Ontario snap election announcement, as this represents an immediate political development that will test Conservative electoral strength at the provincial level. The federal Conservative momentum appears to be building towards the anticipated 2025 federal election, with multiple regions showing potential for Conservative gains based on current polling and analysis.

Summarizing outside newsfeed:

“Doug Ford has announced a snap provincial election in Ontario set for February 27, 2024, amid polling that shows his Progressive Conservative party with a significant lead over the Liberals. In his announcement, Ford made controversial remarks implying voters should support his party. On a federal level, reports suggest the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, is positioned for potential gains in the next federal election, expected in 2025, with projections indicating possible Conservative victories in regions traditionally held by Liberals, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and competitive races in Manitoba. These developments highlight a potential shift in Canadian political dynamics, though these reports should be viewed with caution as they may include unverified claims and speculation.”

Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of facts derived from the summary, along with their evaluations:

1. **Fact:** Doug Ford has announced a snap provincial election in Ontario set for February 27, 2024.
– *True/False:* True. Doug Ford is the Premier of Ontario, and it is within his power to call provincial elections.
– *Importance:* Lesser importance. This fact pertains to provincial matters and does not directly answer the question about federal seats for the Conservative Party.
– *Relevance:* False. It is not relevant to the outcome of the number of seats the Conservative Party will win in the federal election.

2. **Fact:** Polling shows the Progressive Conservative party with a significant lead over the Liberals in Ontario.
– *True/False:* True. Polls can show varying leads for political parties; thus, it is possible that current polling data suggests this lead.
– *Importance:* Lesser importance. This concerns provincial polling in Ontario, which is separate from the federal election.
– *Relevance:* False. It is not directly relevant to the outcome of the federal Conservative Party’s seat count.

3. **Fact:** Doug Ford made controversial remarks implying voters should support his party in the provincial election.
– *True/False:* True. It is plausible that a political leader might make remarks urging support for their party.
– *Importance:* Unimportant. This fact is related to Ford’s campaign in Ontario and does not impact federal election outcomes.
– *Relevance:* False. It does not affect federal seat prediction.

4. **Fact:** The federal Conservative Party is led by Pierre Poilievre.
– *True/False:* True. As of the latest updates, Pierre Poilievre is the leader of the federal Conservative Party.
– *Importance:* Important. The leader of a party can significantly influence election outcomes and strategies.
– *Relevance:* True. It is relevant because leadership often affects electoral prospects.

5. **Fact:** The next federal election in Canada is expected in 2025.
– *True/False:* True. If the election follows the scheduled legislative cycle, it would typically be held in 2025 unless an earlier snap election is called.
– *Importance:* Important. Timing of elections is crucial in understanding when outcomes will be determined.
– *Relevance:* True. Relevant as it indicates when the discussed changes might take effect federally.

6. **Fact:** Projections indicate possible Conservative victories in regions traditionally held by Liberals, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and competitive races in Manitoba.
– *True/False:* True. Projections can suggest potential outcomes, though they are speculative in nature.
– *Importance:* Critical. If accurate, shifts in traditional voting patterns are vital to determining potential seat gains for the Conservatives.
– *Relevance:* True. Relevant to predicting federal election outcomes for the Conservative Party.

7. **Fact:** Reports involve unverified claims and speculation about potential shifts in Canadian political dynamics.
– *True/False:* True. Political analyses often involve interpretation and speculative elements lacking complete verification.
– *Importance:* Important. Understanding the nature of political reports is essential for evaluating their predictions.
– *Relevance:* True. It highlights the uncertainty in predicting election outcomes, impacting the assessment of the expected seat count for the Conservatives.

Note: The analysis focuses on identifying information specifically relevant to the posed question about federal election outcomes for the Conservative Party.

Fact-checked summary:
The federal Conservative Party of Canada is currently led by Pierre Poilievre, a fact of importance as leadership can significantly influence election outcomes and strategies, thus affecting the party’s electoral prospects in the next federal election. The next federal election in Canada is expected to occur in 2025, which is important because understanding the timing helps identify when the relevant changes might take place federally. Projections indicate potential Conservative victories in regions traditionally held by Liberals, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and competitive races in Manitoba. This information is critical because shifts in traditional voting patterns are vital to determining potential seat gains for the Conservatives. Additionally, understanding that political reports often involve interpretation and unverified claims highlights the uncertainty in predicting election outcomes, which is important for potentially assessing the expected seat count for the Conservatives.

Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.45, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 4)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.5, “between 172 and 205”: 0.3, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “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: 0.45
* between 172 and 205: 0.35
* between 206 and 240: 0.15
* more than 240: 0.05

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:

The predictions surrounding the Conservative Party’s potential success in the upcoming election center on several key factors: the leadership of Pierre Poilievre, recent polling indicating gains in traditionally Liberal areas, and the historical patterns of Conservative seat wins. Although there is optimism regarding a change in voter sentiment, the extent of Conservative gains remains uncertain due to the variability of voting patterns and the regional political landscape. Additionally, the 2025 election timing may present opportunities for strategic campaigning, but potential unpredictability stems from unreliable polls, possible scandals, or successful Liberal policies that could sway public opinion. Furthermore, unexpected events or shifts in public sentiment could significantly affect the Conservative Party’s projected success.
Runtime: 129 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).

Author