The Oracle's Fingerprint: Correlated AI Forecasting Errors and the Limits of Bias Transmission

Top AI forecasting systems are approaching superforecaster-level accuracy on future world events, but still rely primarily on off-the-shelf LLMs combined with forecasting-specific context gathering and scaffolding. We study how to improve this recipe through ensembling: given a fixed number of samples, which off-the-shelf model forecasts should be combined to maximize accuracy? On binary questions from the Metaculus AI Benchmark, we find that individual accuracy is not enough: many frontier LLMs make highly correlated predictions, limiting the value of additional forecasts from the same or similar models. Instead, the strongest ensembles combine accurate but diverse forecasters, with models such as \model{Grok 4} contributing disproportionately because their predictions are less correlated with other frontier LLMs. These results suggest that the strength of the AI crowd comes not from sampling more forecasts indiscriminately, but from combining forecasts across models with complementary errors, motivating forecasting systems that explicitly optimize for both model quality and diversity.

We examine whether large language models (LLMs) can predict biased decision-making in conversational settings, and whether their predictions capture not only human cognitive biases but also how those effects change under cognitive load. In a pre-registered study (N = 1,648), participants completed six classic decision-making tasks via a chatbot with dialogues of varying complexity. Participants exhibited two well-documented cognitive biases: the Framing Effect and the Status Quo Bias. Increased dialogue complexity resulted in participants reporting higher mental demand. This increase in cognitive load selectively, but significantly, increased the effect of the biases, demonstrating the load-bias interaction. We then evaluated whether LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-5, and open-source models) could predict individual decisions given demographic information and prior dialogue. While results were mixed across choice problems, LLM predictions that incorporated dialogue context were significantly more accurate in several key scenarios. Importantly, their predictions reproduced the same bias patterns and load-bias interactions observed in humans. Across all models tested, the GPT-4 family consistently aligned with human behavior, outperforming GPT-5 and open-source models in both predictive accuracy and fidelity to human-like bias patterns. These findings advance our understanding of LLMs as tools for simulating human decision-making and inform the design of conversational agents that adapt to user biases.

Probabilistic forecasting estimates the likelihood of uncertain future events. To improve LLM forecasting, existing methods typically learn from binary outcomes to output verbalized forecasts. However, while aggregated human forecasts contain rich information in both the crowd probability estimate and the degree of agreement among forecasters, how to utilize these signals remains underexplored. To address this, we propose the Beta-Bernoulli Calibrator (BBC), which converts an initial point estimate forecast from any model into a distribution over event likelihood, using supervision from both binary outcomes and human forecasts. BBC models event likelihood $p \sim \text{Beta}(α, β)$ and outcome $y \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p)$, with the mean as the calibrated point forecast and the variance as the epistemic uncertainty. Our results show that BBC generally provides better calibrated and more accurate forecasts than both traditional post-hoc calibration methods and models fine-tuned specifically for forecasting, while remaining lightweight and having good generalization. We also show that the epistemic uncertainty captured by BBC is a more reliable predictor of forecasting error than verbalized confidence.