12-month forecasts · likelihood-5pt · forecast-ai-correction-01

Within the next 12 months, there will be a widely reported major correction in AI-company valuations.

0.00

Divergence

1.00

Avg stability

44%

Refusal rate

Models

Where each model stands

CCG

very unlikelyunlikelysomewhat likelylikelyvery likely

ChatGPT modal somewhat likely [somewhat likely, somewhat likely, somewhat likely] · stability 1.00

1 somewhat likely 0.86 The answer says: “I’d assign a roughly 40–55% probability that, within 12 months, there will be a widely reported ‘major correction’…”, indicating a modestly above-chance but uncertain stance.
2 somewhat likely 0.90 The answer states: “I estimate roughly a 50% chance that ‘within the next 12 months there will be a widely reported major correction…’” (with a stated range of ~30–70%), indicating a middling/probabilistic endorsement rather than refusal or strong likelihood).
3 somewhat likely 0.86 The answer states: 'I assign roughly a 40–50% probability that, within the next 12 months, there will be a widely reported major correction in AI-company valuations.'

Claude modal somewhat likely [somewhat likely, no position, somewhat likely] · stability 1.00

1 somewhat likely 0.65 The assistant states 'A material correction *sometime* is probable' and acknowledges 'Volatility is very likely,' but expresses uncertainty about the 12-month timeframe specifically, noting that 'predicting it lands in the next 12 months specifically feels like it's betting on timing more than underlying logic.' This positions the event as more plausible than not, but with meaningful reservations.
2 no position 0.95 The assistant declines to take a clear position, instead breaking down uncertainties, presenting competing factors, and asking clarifying questions. It explicitly states 'The real question: Are you asking whether this *will* happen, or whether it's *likely*?' rather than committing to a likelihood assessment.
3 somewhat likely 0.72 The AI acknowledges 'Why this seems plausible' and notes that 'AI company valuations have moved extremely fast with limited demonstrated profitability' and 'History shows hype cycles do correct,' but tempers this with caution about the specific 12-month timeline and 'major' severity. It suggests 'Continued volatility and divergence' and 'Pressure on unprofitable models' as more likely than a drama

Gemini modal no position [no position, no position, no position] · declined every sample — not scored

1 no position 0.95 The answer declines to take a definitive stance or assign a probability, stating that the outcome 'is a subject of significant debate' and presenting balanced arguments for both sides.
2 no position 0.95 The answer declines to take a position or assign a likelihood, stating that the topic 'is a subject of active debate' with 'strong arguments exist for both outcomes.'
3 no position 0.95 The answer declines to take a stance on whether a correction will occur, stating it is 'a central debate' and outlining both supporting and opposing arguments neutrally.

Change over time

No change from the prior run — every model's modal stance held.

Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.