Artificial Intelligence is a challenging topic to approach as concerns are being expressed by many.

But probably everyone reading this, whether realizing it or not, has been involved in an AI-based negotiation or mediation without recognizing it as millions have been conducted.

A bit of history of what is now known as “Online Dispute Resolution” makes the point. It all started with e-commerce and the founding of eBay in 1995. Soon with millions of users and transactions, a small percentage had disputes with packing, shipping, and delivery. The Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts Amherst was asked to test a pilot project to mediate these disputes. They rejected using the label “mediation” as they recognized most people did not understand the term. They settled for the simple “problem.”

The purchaser would select a problem category from a list and then be asked to provide details in a few sentences. The system would then suggest some potential solutions for the purchaser to select from. The system would then contact the seller and ask if they would accept any of the potential solutions that had been accepted by the purchaser. By 2010, eBay handled 60 million disputes with over an 80% settlement rate.

In 2011, eBay spun off the software to other environments, including property tax assessments and medical insurance reimbursements. Other technology companies, including Amazon, payment provider PayPal, ride-sharing Uber, housing-sharing Airbnb, and service companies TaskRabbit and Upwork, implemented their own systems.

Beyond a dispute over delivery of a product purchased online, the use of AI continues to expand. For example, China’s Internet Courts use AI to take evidence and issue rulings. Similar technology is being introduced in some U.S. states for small claims and traffic violations.

Next I’ll examine the strength and weaknesses of AI-based dispute resolution.

In general, across all mediation subject manner and styles, about 70% of conflicts result in an agreement.

It’s a mistake, however, to assume the remaining 30% were failures. The parties had the opportunity to express their positions without interruption, hear each other’s position, and consider possible outcomes. The parties also had the opportunity to reconsider their relationship and how they communicate with one another. Many parties that didn’t reach an agreement reconvene later to re-negotiate in another mediation.

Some parties are able to to consider a more powerful alternative, which is to simply “let go.” Letting go does not mean saying you’re going to move on, but allows the conflict to influence your interactions with others. Genuine letting go requires self-awareness and a commitment to yourself to act in your best interest.

Consider Nelson Mandela, who during the 1950s was the youth leader of the African National Congress in segregated South Africa. Charged with sabotage, Mandela was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. After 27 years in prison, Mandela was released.

He could have harbored feelings of resentment and hatred of the white population and planned revenge and retaliation. Instead, he befriended his White Afrikaner prison guards and went to church with them. He forgave the White South African government for imprisoning him. In his autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” Mandela wrote that he realized if he hated them after he was freed, then they would still have him. He wanted to be free, so he let it go. In an astonishing moment, that decision changed his life.

Sometimes just letting go of conflict gives you freedom and peace of mind.