The Strategic Foresight of LLMs: Evidence from a Fully Prospective Venture Tournament

Felipe A. Csaszar, Aticus Peterson and Daniel Wilde

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: Can artificial intelligence outperform humans at strategic foresight -- the capacity to form accurate judgments about uncertain, high-stakes outcomes before they unfold? We address this question through a fully prospective prediction tournament using live Kickstarter crowdfunding projects. Thirty U.S.-based technology ventures, launched after the training cutoffs of all models studied, were evaluated while fundraising remained in progress and outcomes were unknown. A diverse suite of frontier and open-weight large language models (LLMs) completed 870 pairwise comparisons, producing complete rankings of predicted fundraising success. We benchmarked these forecasts against 346 experienced managers recruited via Prolific and three MBA-trained investors working under monitored conditions. The results are striking: human evaluators achieved rank correlations with actual outcomes between 0.04 and 0.45, while several frontier LLMs exceeded 0.60, with the best (Gemini 2.5 Pro) reaching 0.74 -- correctly ordering nearly four of every five venture pairs. These differences persist across multiple performance metrics and robustness checks. Neither wisdom-of-the-crowd ensembles nor human-AI hybrid teams outperformed the best standalone model.

Date: 2026-02
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.01684 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2602.01684

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().