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 greatly from 71% last week.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources: Based on the recent news articles, here’s a summary of the Nippon Steel – US Steel merger situation:
On Friday (January 5, 2025), President Joe Biden blocked Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.1 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, citing national security concerns. In response, both companies have now filed lawsuits against the Biden administration, the United Steelworkers union, and Cleveland-Cliffs in a last-ditch effort to save the deal.
The merger faced significant opposition from multiple parties. The United Steelworkers union criticized Nippon Steel’s proposal for lacking long-term commitments, while former President Trump had also voiced opposition to the deal. Biden’s decision to block the merger was influenced by concerns about maintaining domestic control over a crucial American industrial asset.
The most recent development (as of January 6, 2025) is the joint legal challenge by US Steel and Nippon Steel. The companies are attempting to preserve their planned merger through the courts, though details of their legal arguments are still emerging. The situation highlights growing tensions between international business interests and national security concerns in the US steel industry, as well as the Biden administration’s focus on protecting domestic manufacturing capabilities.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “President Joe Biden has blocked Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.1 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel due to national security concerns, prompting both companies to file lawsuits against the Biden administration, the United Steelworkers union, and Cleveland-Cliffs in an effort to salvage the merger. The deal, announced on January 5, 2025, faced strong opposition from multiple parties, including the United Steelworkers union, which criticized the proposal’s lack of long-term commitments to the industry, and former President Trump. Biden’s decision reflects a focus on maintaining domestic control over vital American industrial assets. As of January 6, 2025, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel’s joint legal challenge marks the latest development in this conflict, underscoring the ongoing tensions between international business interests and the U.S. government’s emphasis on safeguarding domestic manufacturing capabilities.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here’s a list of specific facts from the summary, along with an assessment of their correctness and relevance to the original question about the merger being announced before January 21, 2025:
1. **Fact**: President Joe Biden has blocked Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.1 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel due to national security concerns.
– **Correctness**: The correctness of this fact needs external verification as it falls outside the internal context of the summary alone.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. This is directly relevant because it affects the official announcement and the progression of the merger.
2. **Fact**: Both companies have filed lawsuits against the Biden administration, the United Steelworkers union, and Cleveland-Cliffs.
– **Correctness**: The correctness of this fact needs external verification.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. This fact could impact the possibility of the merger proceeding and being officially announced.
3. **Fact**: The proposed deal was valued at $14.1 billion.
– **Correctness**: Typically, such valuation details would require external verification.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. The deal’s value is relevant to its potential approval and announcement.
4. **Fact**: The deal was announced on January 5, 2025.
– **Correctness**: Internally conflicting, given that the summary implies actions have taken place by January 6, 2025, which suggests a tight timeline.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. The announcement date is crucial to the original question about timing.
5. **Fact**: The United Steelworkers union opposed the deal due to a lack of long-term commitments to the industry.
– **Correctness**: Needs external verification.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Opposition from key stakeholders affects the potential for the merger’s announcement.
6. **Fact**: Former President Trump criticized the proposal.
– **Correctness**: Needs external verification.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: False. While this might affect perceptions, it does not directly impact the official announcement proceedings.
7. **Fact**: Biden’s decision reflects a focus on maintaining domestic control over vital American industrial assets.
– **Correctness**: This reflects an interpretation or rationale that needs more context for verification.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. This rationale may influence the decision-making process affecting the merger’s announcement.
8. **Fact**: As of January 6, 2025, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel’s joint legal challenge marks the latest development.
– **Correctness**: Internally consistent if one assumes rapid progression following a January 5 announcement.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. The legal challenge could affect whether the merger is officially announced before the given date.
9. **Fact**: The conflict underscores tensions between international business interests and U.S. government priorities.
– **Correctness**: This is more of a thematic statement than a specific fact, and would need context for correctness.
– **Relevance to Outcome**: True. Underlying tensions could influence the decision to proceed with an official announcement.
Based on the summary, additional verification from external sources is required to fully confirm the correctness of most facts. However, many of these points are relevant to determining whether the merger will be officially announced by the specified date.
Fact-checked summary: The potential official announcement of the U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel merger before January 21, 2025, is impacted by key factors. President Joe Biden’s blockage of Nippon Steel’s proposed $14.1 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel, due to national security concerns, is directly relevant and affects the progression of the merger. Legal challenges have arisen, with both companies filing lawsuits against the Biden administration, the United Steelworkers union, and Cleveland-Cliffs, marking significant developments that could influence the timeline. The deal’s announced value of $14.1 billion and the stated opposition from the United Steelworkers union also highlight challenges, as the union’s concerns about long-term industry commitments could delay proceedings. Moreover, an announcement is implied to have been made on January 5, 2025, but internal consistency issues regarding timing need external verification. Additionally, Biden’s decision reflects a focus on maintaining domestic control over vital industry assets, which could further complicate the announcement process.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.1
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate: The base rate considers the complex regulatory environment in the United States, particularly regarding foreign acquisitions of American companies. Past mergers of significant size in sensitive industries often face substantial delays and hurdles unless there is clear governmental support, which is not present in this case due to the stated national security concerns. The likelihood of large-scale mergers being approved quickly in such contexts can be low, often dragged over long negotiations and legal processes.
Some potential divergent considerations that might effect the base rate: If a major political shift occurs, such as a change in the U.S. administration’s stance on the merger due to new economic or diplomatic priorities, the probability could increase. Additionally, if the legal challenges find new compelling grounds or gain substantial public or political support, this could expedite the proceedings. A quick settlement between the companies and involved stakeholders or a drastic change in the global steel market could also lead to unexpected outcomes.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Reversal or successful legal challenge of the Biden administration’s blockage of the Nippon Steel acquisition. The likelihood of this occurring is low to moderate given the national security concerns cited.
– Resolution of lawsuits filed by U.S. Steel, Nippon Steel, or other stakeholders, favorably for the merger. The likelihood of this occurring within the timeframe is moderate.
– Addressing the United Steelworkers union’s concerns to gain their support or at least neutralize their impact. The likelihood of this happening quickly is low due to the complexity of union negotiations.
– Resolution of any additional antitrust concerns that may arise due to the merger’s size and impact on the U.S. market. The likelihood of quickly resolving these concerns is low to moderate.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 8)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 5)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 3)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.05
Base rate: 0.1 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.01
Reverse Mellers: 0.13
Theory of Mind: 0.3 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 1
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 analysis across various AI models suggests that the merger between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel is highly unlikely to occur soon due to the Biden administration’s blockage on national security grounds. Major barriers include the lengthy and unpredictable nature of legal challenges required to overturn such blocks, union opposition led by the United Steelworkers, and the need to address complex antitrust and regulatory concerns. Historical precedence and regulatory environment also suggest low probabilities for approval, especially given the tight deadline of only 15 days remaining. However, some models note potential scenarios that could alter the outcome, such as unexpected policy shifts, rapid legal resolutions, or sudden strategic changes driven by political or economic shifts. Despite these possibilities, the dominant perspective remains cautious due to the current intricate landscape and significant hurdles involved.
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, 57%.
Obtaining our outside newsfeed from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the situation with US port workers:
Contract negotiations between East and Gulf Coast port workers (represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association – ILA) and port operators are reaching a critical point, with talks set to resume on January 7, 2025. There is a looming deadline of January 15, 2025, to reach a new deal, and the threat of a strike is very real if an agreement isn’t reached.
The potential strike would involve approximately 47,000 dockworkers at major Eastern US and Gulf Coast ports. This follows a previous three-day strike in October 2024 that affected these same regions. Major shipping companies are already preparing for possible disruption, with Maersk urging customers to pick up their containers early, and Hapag-Lloyd announcing new surcharges in anticipation of potential strike action.
Economic analysts predict that a short strike (1-2 weeks) would cause relatively minimal damage to the US economy, with estimated GDP losses of $1-5 billion per day. However, a longer strike could have more significant implications for supply chains and the broader economy. The key issues in the negotiations haven’t been fully disclosed in recent reporting, but historically, dockworker disputes have centered around wages, automation, and working conditions.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “Contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port operators on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States are approaching a crucial stage, with talks set to resume on January 7, 2025, and a deadline of January 15, 2025, to avoid a strike. Approximately 47,000 dockworkers at key ports in these regions could strike if an agreement is not reached, following a previous strike in October 2024. Shipping companies, including Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, are preparing for potential disruptions by advising customers to retrieve containers early and introducing new surcharges. While a short strike might result in moderate economic impact, estimated at $1-5 billion in GDP losses per day, a prolonged strike could severely affect supply chains and the broader economy. The primary issues reportedly involve wages, automation, and working conditions, although specifics have not been fully disclosed.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts from the summary, along with an assessment of their accuracy and relevance to the outcome of a potential strike:
1. **Fact:** Contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and port operators on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States are approaching a crucial stage.
– **Accuracy:** True. This is consistent with the summary provided and fits the context.
– **Relevance:** True. Knowing that negotiations are at a crucial stage is relevant to assessing the probability of a strike.
2. **Fact:** Talks are set to resume on January 7, 2025.
– **Accuracy:** True, internally consistent with the summary, although it slightly contradicts the original question’s specified date.
– **Relevance:** True. The timing of talks is relevant to understanding the timeline and possibly the urgency of negotiations, which relates to the probability of a strike.
3. **Fact:** There is a deadline of January 15, 2025, to avoid a strike.
– **Accuracy:** True. This aligns with the general context and the urgency implied in labor negotiations.
– **Relevance:** True. A deadline is very relevant to the probability of a strike, as unresolved issues by this date could lead to a strike.
4. **Fact:** Approximately 47,000 dockworkers at key ports on the East and Gulf Coasts could strike if an agreement is not reached.
– **Accuracy:** True. The number given is plausible and typical for the scale of operations described.
– **Relevance:** True. The number of potential strikers impacts the scale and impact of a possible strike.
5. **Fact:** There was a previous strike in October 2024.
– **Accuracy:** True, assuming the summary context is correct.
– **Relevance:** True. A recent strike increases the stakes and likelihood of future labor action.
6. **Fact:** Shipping companies, including Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, are preparing for potential disruptions by advising customers to retrieve containers early and introducing new surcharges.
– **Accuracy:** True, as these are common preparatory measures for strikes.
– **Relevance:** True. Preparations by these companies indicate industry expectations and preparations for disruption, which is relevant to assessing the likelihood of a strike.
7. **Fact:** A short strike might result in moderate economic impact, estimated at $1-5 billion in GDP losses per day.
– **Accuracy:** True, as estimated economic impacts align with typical analyses for significant industries.
– **Relevance:** True. The economic impact assessment is relevant to understanding the potential consequences of a strike.
8. **Fact:** A prolonged strike could severely affect supply chains and the broader economy.
– **Accuracy:** True. This is a reasonable assessment for prolonged disruption from key logistical points.
– **Relevance:** True. Understanding the extent of economic impact is relevant to weighing strike consequences.
9. **Fact:** The primary issues reportedly involve wages, automation, and working conditions, although specifics have not been fully disclosed.
– **Accuracy:** True. These issues are commonly at the heart of labor negotiations in this context.
– **Relevance:** True. Knowing the negotiation subjects helps in assessing potential for resolution or continued disputes, affecting strike likelihood.
In conclusion, every fact analyzed above is true for accuracy, and all are relevant in determining the likelihood of a strike occurring in Q1 2025.
Fact-checked summary: The contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association and port operators on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States are approaching a crucial stage, and talks are set to resume on January 7, 2025. There is a deadline of January 15, 2025, to avoid a strike, by which unresolved issues could lead to labor action. Approximately 47,000 dockworkers at key ports could strike if an agreement is not reached. A previous strike occurred in October 2024, indicating a heightened potential for future labor actions. Shipping companies, such as Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, are preparing for potential disruptions by advising customers to retrieve containers early and introducing new surcharges, reflecting industry expectations for potential strikes. A short strike could result in moderate economic impacts, estimated at $1-5 billion in GDP losses per day, whereas a prolonged strike could severely affect supply chains and the broader economy. The main issues include wages, automation, and working conditions, which are typical points of contention in these negotiations.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.4
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate: The base rate of 0.4 was determined by considering historical frequency and current context of labor negotiations involving the International Longshoremen’s Association. Previous strikes, including the one in October 2024, suggest a moderate chance of repeat actions given recurring issues such as wages, automation, and working conditions. The economic stakes and preparation by shipping companies also indicate industry expectation of potential disruption, which slightly elevates the probability of a strike occurring.
Some potential divergent considerations that might effect the base rate: Divergent considerations include potential mediation actions by the government or a third-party mediator that could facilitate an agreement. Additionally, last-minute concessions by either party could avert a strike, altering the outcome from the base rate expectations. External factors, such as economic pressures on either the dockworkers or port operators, might also impact the likelihood of reaching an agreement before the deadline.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– The International Longshoremen’s Association and port operators on the East and Gulf Coasts fail to reach an agreement by January 15, 2025. (Likely)
– The failure to reach an agreement results in a decision by the dockworkers to strike. (Moderately likely)
– The strike action is not preemptively resolved by any intervention from the government or other mediation efforts. (Moderately likely)
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.65 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.6 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.55 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.6
Base rate: 0.4 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.04
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Low
Mellers: 0.64
Reverse Mellers: 0.57
Theory of Mind: 0.5 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.001
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.57
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The analysis of the probability of a strike hinges on several interconnected factors. On the side suggesting a likely strike, the recent history of strikes, particularly in October 2024, indicates a propensity for labor actions amid unresolved issues like automation and working conditions. The economic stakes and preparations by major shipping companies further suggest a potential disruption. However, there are significant counterpoints, including the potential for government intervention, last-minute negotiations which are common, and the economic interests of both parties to avoid disruptions that could cause substantial GDP loss. Recent developments such as salary increases and upcoming talks scheduled for January 7, 2025, may also lead to resolutions before the January 15 deadline, moderated by mediation efforts and external pressures that could avert a strike, highlighting the dynamic nature of labor negotiations and the possibility of overestimating strike likelihood based solely on past actions and tensions.a.
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: 21.05%
* between 172 and 205: 47.37%
* between 206 and 240: 26.32%
* more than 240: 5.26%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources: I’ll summarize the key points from these recent news articles about Canadian politics:
Most recent and significant news (within last 24 hours): There are reports that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is likely to announce his resignation, according to sources cited by multiple news outlets including Reuters and The Globe and Mail. While Trudeau has not made a final decision, speculation about his potential departure has intensified.
Other recent developments:
– Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has argued that Canada should avoid holding a federal election while Donald Trump appears likely to return to office in the US, citing concerns about potential implications for Canada-US relations.
– There’s a broader trend of urban voters in Canada increasingly leaning right politically, with changing demographics playing a role as cities see an influx of immigrant populations. This represents a shift from traditional voting patterns in Canadian metropolitan areas.
Looking ahead to 2025: Northeastern Ontario is preparing for the possibility of two elections in 2025 (federal and provincial), which could create logistical challenges for party organizers and voters in the region. The timing and management of these potential dual elections is raising concerns about voter fatigue and resource allocation for political parties.
These developments suggest significant potential changes in Canadian political leadership and voting patterns, with implications for both domestic politics and international relations.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “Recent developments in Canadian politics include reports that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may announce his resignation, although no final decision has been made, according to sources like Reuters and The Globe and Mail. In other news, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has expressed concerns about holding a federal election while Donald Trump may be regaining office in the US, warning of possible impacts on Canada-US relations. Additionally, there is a trend of urban voters in Canada shifting to the right politically, influenced by changing demographics with immigrant populations. Looking ahead, Northeastern Ontario could face logistical challenges with the possibility of both federal and provincial elections in 2025, raising concerns about voter fatigue and resource management. These developments hint at significant shifts in Canadian political leadership and voting patterns, affecting both domestic and international spheres.”
Fact-checking news summary: Sure, let’s break down the summary into specific facts and assess each for consistency and relevance to the original question.
1. **Fact:** Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may announce his resignation, according to sources like Reuters and The Globe and Mail.
– **Correctness:** True – As of the last updates, there have been reports and speculations about Trudeau’s potential resignation from multiple media sources.
– **Relevance:** True – The resignation of a Prime Minister could influence the performance and strategy of political parties, including the Conservative Party, in the next federal election.
2. **Fact:** Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has expressed concerns about holding a federal election while Donald Trump may be regaining office in the US, warning of possible impacts on Canada-US relations.
– **Correctness:** False – While Elizabeth May might have expressed concerns about Canada-US relations under Trump’s potential return, it is speculative whether this directly relates to holding a federal election.
– **Relevance:** False – While such geopolitical concerns could indirectly influence Canadian politics, they do not directly impact the number of seats the Conservative Party will win.
3. **Fact:** Urban voters in Canada are shifting to the right politically due to changing demographics with immigrant populations.
– **Correctness:** False – This assertion is misleading as immigrant populations in Canada historically tend to lean left politically. Furthermore, shifts in urban voting patterns would require specific and consistent data sources to verify.
– **Relevance:** True – Changes in voter behavior, including any political shift, are directly relevant to predicting election outcomes, including seat wins by parties.
4. **Fact:** Northeastern Ontario could face logistical challenges with federal and provincial elections in 2025, raising concerns about voter fatigue and resource management.
– **Correctness:** True – If both provincial and federal elections are scheduled closely, logistical issues like voter fatigue and resource allocation are valid concerns, as noted in past instances.
– **Relevance:** False – While logistical challenges are genuine, they do not specifically pertain to the number of seats the Conservative Party will win.
These assessments provide a clearer understanding of the context surrounding the upcoming Canadian federal parliamentary election and what may impact the Conservative Party’s performance.
Fact-checked summary: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s potential resignation, as reported by sources including Reuters and The Globe and Mail, could influence the performance and strategy of political parties, such as the Conservative Party, in the upcoming Canadian federal election. This development is relevant to the original question regarding the number of seats the Conservative Party may win, as changes in leadership can significantly impact electoral dynamics.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.15, “between 172 and 205”: 0.45, “between 206 and 240”: 0.3, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 5)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.25, “between 172 and 205”: 0.45, “between 206 and 240”: 0.25, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.2, “between 172 and 205”: 0.5, “between 206 and 240”: 0.25, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 6
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.2105
* between 172 and 205: 0.4737
* between 206 and 240: 0.2632
* more than 240: 0.0526
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The predictions regarding the Conservative Party’s performance in the next Canadian federal election draw upon several key factors. Central to these is the current lead of the Conservatives in polls, indicating potential seat gains, although dramatic swings are historically uncommon in Canada’s political landscape. The potential resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to play a significant role in these forecasts, as it could alter voter dynamics substantially, but it also allows the Liberal Party a chance to reset under new leadership. Despite polling trends suggesting Conservative support could translate to 170-200 seats, the unpredictability of campaign dynamics, such as shifts in public opinion, unforeseen events, and the impact of first-past-the-post electoral mechanics, make precise predictions challenging. Ultimately, factors such as new issues emerging during the campaign or successful Liberal strategies under a new leader could mitigate expected Conservative gains.
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).
