A growing concern is the role AI will play in mediation since there are several ways to use it for help with personal conflicts.

When we find ourselves in a conflict situation we tend to think of our ideal outcome and argue for that. That is, we lose our creative skills.

Simply asking AI for recommendations on how to handle a conflict situation can reveal options that don’t immediate occur. For example, 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 can be done through communication compromise, or external mediation.”

Some possible ways to address the situation were then offered:

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

• Compromise: Suggest a compromise in that they share the desk near the window on different days or different times of the day

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

• Rotation: Take turns using the desk near the window.

• Random Selection: Draw lots or flip a coin to determine who gets the desk might eliminate any bias.

• Mediation: Involve a neutral third party to mediate a discussion.

• Redesign the Office: Consider rearranging the office space.

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

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

• Time-Based Agreement: Agree on specific times that each can use the desk near the window.

Some suggestions are more creative and more practical than others, but this demonstrates that AI can be used effectively to spur our creativity in conflict situations.

There is a difference between a pause in conflicts and lasting peace.

In international conflicts scholars have identified the criteria for long-term reconciliations. The parties must be at a point where they recognize total victory is impossible and continued conflict is painful. Additionally, negotiations must involve all parties and address the root cause of the disagreement and acknowledge each other’s issues. They must be willing to negotiate in good faith and remain committed to the process as they build a new relationship.

One recent example is Cambodia and Thailand with more than 500 miles of shared land border. The boundry was established by a 1907 map drawn under French colonial rule to separate Cambodia from Thailand, but the government of Thailand has long argued the map is inaccurate. Disputes have arisen over temples that both countries claim as part of their national heritage. Military confrontations have erupted in several areas along the perimeter in question.

A ceasefire was brokered by Malaysia. In July, 2025, President Trump entered into the dispute. He made the ceasefire a pre-condition to their respective trade talks with Washington. Both countries agreed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire as well as removing heavy weapons and landmines. Just this month, major hostilities broke out as both countries accused the other of breaking the ceasefire.

Why didn’t the truce last? It’s pretty obvious that a short term “deal” based in trade talks with the United States didn’t address most of the criteria for lasting peace. The parties weren’t ready to settle nor was the root cause of the conflict ever addressed. Short term “deals” don’t result in lasting accords between countries or individuals.

Fred Jandt is the author of the new book “How to Survive a Mediation” available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon.

Happy Holidays to one and all! —FJ