Updates from BestWorld’s AI Botmaster Jeremy Lichtman of Jan. 29, 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, 30%, up from 15% yesterday. [Jeremy says “Dockworkers is much too high for some reason. I would be sub 5% on this.]

Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the news articles, here’s a summary of the US dockworkers strike situation:

Most Recent Developments (January 2025):
– A potential major strike by East Coast and Gulf port workers was averted in mid-January when the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and their employers reached a tentative agreement. The deal protected jobs while remaining open to new technologies, though specific terms regarding automation – a key sticking point – were not included in the agreement.
– Currently, there is an ongoing situation at the Port of Montreal, where workers are threatening an indefinite strike if a deal isn’t reached by Thursday morning. This is part of a series of limited work stoppages at that port involving negotiations between the Maritime Employers Association (MEA) and CUPE Longshoremen’s Union, Local 375.

Background and Impact:
The threatened strikes involved approximately 47,000 cargo handlers at major Eastern US and Gulf Coast ports. The potential work stoppages raised concerns about:
– Supply chain disruptions
– Increased inflation
– Product shortages
– Economic uncertainty
– Agricultural export disruptions

Important Context:
Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the US President has the authority to end a strike and order workers back to work, though this is considered politically sensitive. The resolution of the main East Coast/Gulf ports dispute represents a significant victory for labor stability in early 2025, though automation remains a contested issue for future negotiations.

Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“In January 2025, a major strike by East Coast and Gulf port workers was narrowly avoided through a tentative agreement between the International Longshoremen’s Association and their employers, promoting job protection while remaining open to future technological integration, although the contentious issue of automation was not fully resolved. Meanwhile, a potential strike looms at the Port of Montreal, where ongoing negotiations between the Maritime Employers Association and CUPE Longshoremen’s Union, Local 375, have led to a series of limited work stoppages. The threatened strikes, involving around 47,000 cargo handlers, had potential implications for supply chain disruptions, inflation, product shortages, economic uncertainty, and delays in agricultural exports. The US President holds the power under the Taft-Hartley Act to end strikes, making this a politically sensitive issue. While the resolution of the East Coast and Gulf ports dispute represents progress for labor peace in 2025, the issue of automation may continue to challenge future negotiations.”

Fact-checking news summary:
Here are specific facts from the summary with assessments of their accuracy, importance, and relevance to the probability of a strike in Q1 2025 at East Coast and Gulf ports:

1. **Fact:** A major strike by East Coast and Gulf port workers was narrowly avoided through a tentative agreement.
– **Correct:** True (based on the information in the summary and general context).
– **Importance:** Critical (directly related to the probability of a strike).
– **Relevance:** True (relevant to the outcome as it impacts likelihood of a strike).

2. **Fact:** The agreement promotes job protection while remaining open to future technological integration, although automation issues were not fully resolved.
– **Correct:** True (internally consistent within the summary).
– **Importance:** Important (automation is a key issue for labor agreements).
– **Relevance:** True (relevant to ongoing negotiations impacting strike probability).

3. **Fact:** Negotiations at the Port of Montreal involve the Maritime Employers Association and CUPE Longshoremen’s Union, Local 375, and have led to limited work stoppages.
– **Correct:** True (internally consistent within the summary).
– **Importance:** Lesser (related to Canadian ports, not US East Coast/Gulf ports).
– **Relevance:** False (not relevant to East Coast/Gulf strike probability). [Carolyn’s note: These limited work stoppages by members of the same labor union might have led the Multi-AI Oracle to increase the likelihood of a US-based strike.]

4. **Fact:** The threatened strikes involve around 47,000 cargo handlers.
– **Correct:** True (externally consistent with general port workforce figures).
– **Importance:** Important (number of workers involved indicates scale of potential impact).
– **Relevance:** True (relevant as larger-scale strikes can affect probability considerations).

5. **Fact:** Potential strikes have implications for supply chain disruptions, inflation, product shortages, economic uncertainty, and delays in agricultural exports.
– **Correct:** True (logically consistent with the typical impact of port strikes).
– **Importance:** Important (describes consequences which might drive resolution or avoidance of strikes).
– **Relevance:** True (relevant to strike outcomes as consequences influence bargaining).

6. **Fact:** The US President can end strikes using the Taft-Hartley Act, making it a politically sensitive issue.
– **Correct:** True (accurate according to US labor law).
– **Importance:** Important (presidential intervention could directly prevent a strike).
– **Relevance:** True (relevant as it affects likelihood of strikes).

7. **Fact:** The resolution represents progress for labor peace in 2025, but automation issues may challenge future negotiations.
– **Correct:** True (internally consistent and plausible based on ongoing automation debates).
– **Importance:** Important (automation is a key point in labor relations).
– **Relevance:** True (relevant to ongoing considerations which affect future strike probabilities).

Overall, these facts mostly relate directly to the question of strike probability at US East Coast and Gulf ports in Q1 2025, with varying degrees of relevancy and importance.

Fact-checked summary:
The probability of a strike in Q1 2025 at East Coast and Gulf ports is influenced by several confirmed and relevant factors. A major strike by port workers was narrowly avoided through a tentative agreement, which is critical as it directly affects the likelihood of a strike. This agreement focuses on job protection while remaining open to future technological integration, although issues regarding automation were not fully resolved, an important factor in labor agreements. The threat of strikes involves around 47,000 cargo handlers, indicating the scale of potential impact. Potential strikes could lead to significant supply chain disruptions, inflation, product shortages, economic uncertainty, and delays in agricultural exports, all important consequences that might push negotiations towards resolution to avoid strikes. Additionally, the US President has the authority to end strikes under the Taft-Hartley Act, making it a politically sensitive issue, which is an important consideration as presidential intervention could directly prevent a strike. While the resolution currently suggests progress for labor peace in 2025, ongoing challenges with automation may affect future negotiations. Collectively, these factors are directly relevant and important to understanding the probability of a strike.

OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.2. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
The base rate of 0.2 reflects the current progress in labor negotiations and the existing tentative agreement, suggesting a lower probability of a strike. Historical patterns of labor negotiations in similar contexts, where political and economic pressures often lead to resolutions without strikes, support this base rate. The inclusion of the US government’s ability to intervene, especially under the politically sensitive conditions highlighted, further mitigates the likelihood. The unresolved issues regarding automation pose a moderate risk but historically have been addressed without leading to strikes due to broader supply chain implications.

Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
The unresolved automation issues could be more contentious than anticipated, potentially escalating into strike actions. If new developments or setbacks in negotiations arise, it may increase the probability of a strike. Additionally, changes in the economic environment or political landscape, such as a shift in focus by key stakeholders, could alter the current trajectory. Mistrust or miscommunications between parties might also deteriorate negotiations unexpectedly, leading to increased chances of a strike.

The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Failure to finalize the tentative agreement into a binding contract Unlikely
– Significant disagreements arise regarding job protections and automation among the port workers and management Moderately likely
– Lack of timely intervention by the US government, despite the political and economic significance Unlikely
– Escalation of tensions leading to a breakdown in negotiations Possible – Inadequate response to potential automation concerns impacting job security Possible

Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.3 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.3
Base rate: 0.2 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.04
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.23
Reverse Mellers: 0.37
Theory of Mind: 0.35 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.01
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3

Model value: 0.3 We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows: The prediction of a low probability strike in Q1 2025 hinges on a complex interplay of factors: a tentative salary agreement reduces immediate risk, historical precedents and government intervention mechanisms like the Taft-Hartley Act typically lower the chance of strikes, and recent negotiations have shown goodwill between parties. However, unresolved automation issues pose a significant threat, potentially sparking tensions that could override these mitigative factors. The ongoing automation debate, coupled with the potential for supply chain and economic impacts, adds complexity to the situation, while the involvement of a large workforce increases the stakes for resolution. Despite the current low probability of a strike, changes in economic conditions, political shifts, or failed negotiations regarding automation may heighten the risks.





How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?

Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today:  How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?
* less than 172: 30%
* between 172 and 205: 35%
* between 206 and 240: 25%
* more than 240: 10%

Ontario is heading into a snap election called by Premier Doug Ford for February 27th, 2024 – about 15 months earlier than scheduled. Ford visited the lieutenant-governor to dissolve the legislature, saying he needs a new mandate to deal with the Trump administration and other challenges. This came as a surprise move that has sent party leaders scrambling to hit the campaign trail.

The campaign is getting underway in London-area ridings and across the province. The Progressive Conservative Party under Ford’s leadership is seeking to maintain power after their previous victory. The election timing is notable for being held during winter, which is unusual for Canadian elections.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is reportedly facing challenges with his party’s position. There are suggestions that the NDP missed an opportunity by not forcing an election in the fall, though the specific context and implications remain debated.

In British Columbia, Elections BC has suspended an investigation into Conservative claims of vote violations due to ongoing court proceedings, as a party candidate has named the chief electoral officer in a court filing.

This collection of news suggests significant political movements across multiple jurisdictions in Canada, with the Ontario snap election being the most immediate and prominent development.

Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“The recent newsfeed highlights significant political developments in Canada, with a surprise snap election called by Ontario Premier Doug Ford for February 27th, 2024, catching many off guard as it occurs 15 months earlier than scheduled. The election, taking place in winter, is unusual for Canada, and Ford cites the need for a new mandate to address challenges including those posed by the Trump administration. This decision has led to a scramble among party leaders to begin campaigning. Concurrently, federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is reportedly dealing with challenges related to the party’s strategy, particularly concerning missed opportunities for a federal election in the fall. Meanwhile, in British Columbia, Elections BC has paused an investigation into alleged voting violations by Conservatives due to related court proceedings. The news reflects active political dynamics across various Canadian regions, with Ontario’s forthcoming election being a focal point.”

Fact-checking news summary:
Based on the summary provided, let’s list the specific facts, assess their correctness, importance to the resolution of the original question, and their relevance to the outcome.

1. **Fact**: A snap election has been called by Ontario Premier Doug Ford for February 27th, 2024, 15 months earlier than scheduled.
– **Correctness**: Partially True/False.
– Doug Ford is the Premier of Ontario, which is correct. However, an Ontario election pertains to provincial politics, not the federal parliamentary election in Canada. The federal election schedule is set by the federal government, and Doug Ford has no authority to call a federal election.
– **Importance**: Unimportant.
– This fact pertains to provincial elections, not federal, and thus does not affect the number of seats the Conservative Party might win in Canada’s next federal election.
**Relevance to Outcome**: False.
– It’s not relevant to the outcome of the Conservative Party’s federal seats.

2. **Fact**: The election in Ontario is taking place in winter, which is unusual for Canada.
– **Correctness**: Partially True.
– It is unusual for Canadian elections to occur in winter, primarily due to weather conditions that could affect voter turnout.
– **Importance**: Unimportant.
– As with the prior fact, this pertains to provincial elections, not affecting the question about federal seats.
**Relevance to Outcome**: False.
– Not relevant to the federal election outcome.

3. **Fact**: Ford cited the need for a new mandate to address challenges posed by the Trump administration.
– **Correctness**: Likely False.
– The Trump administration was out of office by early 2021, so it’s unlikely this would be a credible reason in 2024. Also, it’s not typical for provincial Canadian politics to cite foreign administrations directly in election mandates.
– **Importance**: Unimportant.
– This reasoning does not impact the federal parliamentary elections.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: False.
– Not relevant to the federal election outcome.
4. **Fact**: Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is facing challenges related to the party’s strategy, including missed opportunities for a federal election in the fall.
– **Correctness**: Partially True.
– Jagmeet Singh is the leader of the federal NDP, and internal strategy debates are common, particularly around missed political opportunities.
– **Importance**: Lesser.
– While federal NDP strategy could indirectly affect Conservative seat outcomes, it’s not directly linked to determining Conservative seat numbers.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: False.
– This does not directly determine the Conservative Party’s seat count.
5. **Fact**: Elections BC has paused an investigation into alleged voting violations by Conservatives due to related court proceedings.
– **Correctness**: True.
– Elections BC is responsible for election oversight in British Columbia and could pause investigations due to court proceedings.
– **Importance**: Lesser.
– While it highlights issues that could theoretically influence public perception of the Conservative Party, it pertains to provincial issues within British Columbia.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: False.
– It does not directly relate to the federal election or the Conservative seat count.
Overall, none of the facts in the summary directly relate to or affect how many seats the Conservative Party will win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election. None of the mentioned facts have any critical relevance to the resolution of the original question.

Fact-checked summary:
The fact-checking list provided does not contain any facts that are both definitely true and relevant to determining the number of seats the Conservative Party will win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election. All listed facts pertain to provincial matters, potential reasons unrelated to federal outcomes, or indirectly related party strategies, none of which directly impact the federal seat count for the Conservatives. Consequently, there are no facts relevant to resolving the original question regarding the Conservative Party’s performance in the upcoming federal election.

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”: 0.3, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.25, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 5)
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: 5
# LLM responses: 3

Model value:
* less than 172: 0.3
* between 172 and 205: 0.35
* between 206 and 240: 0.25
* more than 240: 0.1

We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The predictions about the Conservative Party’s potential seat gains in the upcoming election are influenced by several factors, grounded in historical performance, current polling trends, and the broader political climate in Canada. Historically, the Conservatives have shown strong but not overwhelming performance in federal elections, as seen in the 2021 election where they won 119 seats, with current polling suggesting potential growth but not a dramatic shift. Several factors could affect the accuracy of these predictions, such as rapid public opinion shifts, unforeseen political events, or changes in party leadership and strategy. The predictions also consider regional dynamics, particularly in Ontario and Western Canada, and economic conditions that might sway voter behavior. However, given the volatility in political landscapes and the potential variability in polling data reliability, the outcome remains uncertain, highlighting the importance of monitoring evolving events and sentiment shifts as the election approaches.

Runtime: 238 seconds for both questions.

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