Chat-GPT, an artificial intelligence program generates text that can be used in business, social media, classrooms, and publishing. Its potential is still to be explored, but it has garnered emotional reactions from many who worry about its misuse and some who see its potential. Academics are concerned that students will use Chat-GPT or any other program of its type to generate essays and exam answers rather than learn to write and think on their own. Professional writers worry this technology could be used to replace their efforts. The latest advent in technology has created a firestorm of controversy.
Probably most interesting is the response from the mediation community. While there is not one unified reaction, many mediators seem to be anxious. Mediators and trainers are concerned that AI could be used to replace the mediator in a session, developing opening statements, strategies for negotiations, and responses to bring people to a settlement. Initial trials have shown that in mediations where the emphasis is solely on directing and then fixing the presenting “problem” facing the parties, AI has the potential to take parties to a practical “solution.” For the prescriptive, detached, directive, shuttle negotiation-focused, mediators of today, Chat-GPT is a threat, and maybe a good one.
Chat-GPT provides an interesting challenge for a field that most recently has shown a diminishing desire to bring parties together to talk with each other and even less interest in responding to the emotional issues inherent in most mediations (Galton, Love, & Weiss, 2021). Mediators prefer using “caucuses” to never bring the parties together and then engage in shuttle negotiations to ensure emotions and true conversations are kept to a minimum if they are allowed at all. Healing the relationship has been seen as time-consuming. When time is money, the approach requiring more effort and skill was not seen as valuable. Despite research showing participant dissatisfaction with this model (ABA, 2017, Maryland Judiciary, 2016), many mediators have not changed and continue to defend the style of mediation that keeps parties apart and focuses only on “getting the deal done.”
Perhaps the advent of Chat-GPT will prompt us as mediators to re-examine our purpose. If we are only focused on the “quick fix,” we can accomplish that using AI without the need of a live mediator. We know participants in mediation don’t like this model (ABA, 2017; Maryland. Judiciary, 2016), but it has remained a model embraced by many mediators because of its expediency. If, however, we ascribe to a higher calling in mediation, one that seeks to bring people together to heal their differences, to listen, to learn from each other, to work through the conflict together, then a human-centered model may sustain what mediation was developed to do years ago.
American Bar Association (2017). Report on the task force on mediator techniques. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/materials/2019-mediation-research-task-force-report.pdf
Galton, E. Love, L. & Weiss, J. (2021). The decline of dialogue: The rise of caucus-only mediation and the disappearance of the joint session. Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 39(6). Retrieved from: https://www2.mediate.com/mediationinc/The%20Decline%20of%20Dialogue%20--%20Galton-Love-Weiss.pdf
Maryland Judiciary and State Justice Institute (2016). What works in district court day of trial mediation: Effectiveness of various mediation strategies on short- and long-term outcomes. Retrieved from https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/courtoperations/pdfs/districtcourtstrategiesfullreport.pdf