WHAT MEDIATORS CAN LEARN FROM AI - PART TWO

As a doctoral student at Cornell University, Ernest Thiessen used game theory to develop an efficient methodology for complex negotiations known as Interactive Computer-Assisted Negotiation Support System or ICANS, the first secure multiparty negotiation tool of its kind, known by many now as SmartSettle ONE® and SmartSettle Infinity®.

With SmartSettle ONE®, negotiators communicate via a secure neutral server on the Internet that acts as a mediator using AI algorithms to suggest efficient outcomes. The negotiators may interact entirely online or some combination of face-to-face, if they so choose.

Smartsettle Infinity® is able to handle multiple-party and any number of quantitative or qualitative issues with collaborative decision making. It’s perhaps the most advanced negotiation system available. The process involves parties first submitting initial proposals and the program elicits the their preferences. The parties are encouraged to accurately present their positions as misrepresentation will lead to inferior outcomes.

SmartSettle provides negotiators with a graphic interface panel that displays their proposals as well as those it generates. When negotiating multiple issues, the proposals are presented as packages comprised of values for all the issues. Parties may adjust their positions or accept a proposal in confidence, which is referred to in SmartSettle as a bid. When the system detects an overlap of bidding an agreement is declared.

Negotiators may request an improvement to their agreement. SmartSettle then generates potential agreements based on the game theory algorithm “maximize the minimum gain.”

If negotiators desire to work collaboratively, and if they are willing to be forthright in expressing their preferences, the system will facilitate their negotiation. SmartSettle is being used successfully for separation agreements, environmental disputes, insurance claims and to model possible agreements for Brexit as well as for Ukraine and Russia.

One study has concluded that in some situations AI negotiating agents can outperform human beings in terms of deal optimization, but less able to deal with arbitrary human conversations, semantic issues, emotions, and participants not being forthright or negotiating collaboratively.