A recent article by Salzburg mediator Michael Lardy has caught the attention of many who are asking if Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used during mediation or possibly replace human mediators.

It was only in November 2022 that ChatGPT launched and within five days a million people registered. Lardy cites a Goldman Sachs study that, “in the near future, 44% of the work of lawyers and jurists will be taken over by AI.” Can the same claim be made for the role of mediators?

Consider the critical mediator skill of helping parties distinguish between positions and needs. When asked to describe the difference between the two, ChatGPT 4.0 responded: Positions are the concrete demands or stances a party takes in a conflict. For example: “I want a 10% raise.” Needs are the underlying interests, values, or motives behind the positions. For example: The need for recognition or financial security. In summary: Positions are what we want; needs are why we want it. Could ChatGPT then effectively analyze a disputant’s statements and identify their position and needs? Time will tell.

It brings to mind an AI Mediation focused webinar promoted this warning for participants: “AI systems will not replace mediators, but will replace mediators who do not engage with AI.” This is a perspective that’s been accepted by a vast amount of industries and should probably be taken seriously.

Mediators often work with people who say they simply can’t communicate with their opposing party.

The complaints are typical: “I can’t get through to them” or “They won’t listen to reason.” Sometimes mediators can offer a few simple words of advice that can go a long way to opening up communication between the parties.

Some simple suggestions that mediators might make include:

First: “Have you considered taking a recess from arguing and trying to persuade them that they’re wrong?

Second: “Have you verbalized what you understand their position to be?” Many times participants discover they didn’t fully hear or understood the other person’s position. Reaching agreement of each other’s position is a critical necessary step to move forward.

Third: Attempt to develop some empathy by asking “If you were to find yourself in the same situation as they are, could you see how they might feel the way they do?” This is not to ask the person to agree with the other person, but to begin to understand how the other person developed the position they are advocating.

Fourth: Separate feelings about the person from their position. Being able to do this can lead to “an agreement to disagree” with mutual respect.

Finally, if the parties are willing to proceed I ask, “Is there anything we can agree on today?” It is not unusual for parties to find a small aspect they can agree upon and then find themselves willing to go further.