There is much controversy regarding the future of mediation and Artificial Intelligence.

Some see AI having the potential to replace mediators. Others point out it cannot replace human elements, such as empathy, which are often critical to the mediation process. The middle ground at present is to ask what can AI do to supplement the mediator’s work. One use currently available is to generate potential compromises the parties may then consider.

To demonstrate how AI can be creative, a colleague presented ChatGPT with this problem:

“Two professors occupy the same office but both want the desk near the window. In what ways can this dispute be resolved or at least settled?”

He received this suggestion: “Resolving or settling a dispute between two professors who both want the desk near the window an be done through communication compromise, or external mediation.”

Some possible ways to address the situation were then offered, summarized here by space:

1.) Communication: Encourage the professors to have an open and respectful conversation about the preferences and needs.

2.) Compromise: Suggest a compromise where they share the desk near the window on different days or difference times of the day

3.) Office Allocation Policy: Check if there is an official policy for assigning office spaces. Policies can provide an objective basis.

4.) Rotation: Take turns using the desk near the window.

5.) Random Selection: Draw lots or flip a coin to determine who gets the desk eliminates any bias.

6.) Mediation: Involve a neutral third party to mediate a discussion.

7.) Redesign the Office: Consider rearranging the office space.

8.) Alternative Desks: Identify other available desks in the office that may have other features that meet each professor’s needs

9.) Seniority or Priority: Consider giving priority by seniority or specific needs.

10.) Time-Based Agreement: Agree on specific times that each cn use the desk near the window.

Admittedly, some of these proposals are variations of others, but many disputants come to mediation with only one solution in mind. Perhaps providing disputants with a ChatGPT generated list of options might encourage human creativity.

My colleague’s ChatGPT concluded: “The key to resolving this dispute is to encourage open communication, fairness, and a willingness to find a solution that works for both professors and respects their individual needs and preferences. The chosen approach may vary depending on institutional policies, the personalities involved, and the specific circumstances of the office space.”

Everyone on occasion has felt a person they’re dealing with isn’t being logical.

In mediation, both parties can feel the other is simply not being rational and typically account for this as emotions getting in the way of logic.

But there is another explanation to consider called “Cognitive Biases,” which refers to these deviations from rational judgment and the ones most commonly seen during mediation include:

1.) Anchoring - This refers to the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information one acquires. However, some consultants advise negotiators to use anchoring to make the first proposal favorable to the negotiator to ensure further discussions center around that initial idea.

2.) Confirmation Bias - This refers to the tendency to search for and only remember the information that confirms one’s preconceptions. It isn’t unusual to hear disputants in a session upon hearing details of the other party’s story to say something like, “I wasn’t aware of that,” or “I hadn’t considered that,” when in fact they may well have but cognitively chose not to recall that bit of information.

3.) Egocentric Bias - This refers to the tendency to rely only on one’s perspective. Parties in mediation become convinced “any logical person would agree with me,” even when another person has good reasons to disagree. Obviously, mediators encourage parties “to see the situation from the other perspective.”

4.) Prospect Theory - This refers to what is also called the “Endowment Effect,” where we tend to demand more for a possession than we’d be willing to pay to acquire it. In other words, if a person wants $100 to give up an item, they might admit to being willing to pay $85 if they were to acquire it.

5.) Self-Assessment - This refers to a tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their abilities and for experts to underestimate theirs.

So, how do mediators address these errors in judgment? One approach is to encourage parties to begin thinking how each is perceiving the situation and not how they would perceive it if in that person’s position. “Putting yourself in the other’s person’s shoes” doesn’t necessarily change what you see, but instead one needs to apply empathy for how the other party sees it from their point of view.