We are now living in an era of fourth industrial revolution characterised by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.  First coined by Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, fourth Industrial revolution era, unlike the previous first, second and third industrial revolutions, is dominated by artificial intelligence (AI), which is radically altering many professions. While it led to the decline of some traditional jobs, it created new opportunities in digital marketing, web development, and data science. Least developed countries like Nepal will have to countenance the implications of fourth industrial revolution as the developed nations will have to.

Fourth industrial revolution will have far-reaching implications on almost every aspect of our daily life, affecting how we interact with technology, and transforming where and how work is done. It is ushering into a fully connected digital age as a result of leaps in computer power and efficiency in terms of data gathering, analysis, and decision – and prediction-making capabilities. This article will talk about the AI implications on alternative dispute resolution, especially mediation, with reference to an article titled “Will AI replace Mediators”  by Robert Bergman for mediate.com – a web based widely acclaimed  e- resources in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) field . 

AI in Mediation

While AI technology’s integration into various sectors has historically oscillated between replacing and creating jobs, its role in dispute resolution through mediation raises unique questions about the balance between human empathy and machine efficiency. Mediation as dispute resolution technique relies on human attributes such as empathy, emotional intelligence, and the ability to navigate complex social dynamics. These skills are crucial in understanding the subtleties of conflict and facilitating resolutions that are acceptable to the parties involved in the disputes. However, as mentioned in the above referred article, we now live in a world of interruptions, information overload, misinformation, too many false choices, biases and especially mobile phone and social media addiction. 

The use of social media has left us particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias, or the propensity to choose evidences that shores up our prior beliefs. Can AI, with its current capabilities, mitigate the bad effects of social media influence and replace the inherently human skills needed for successful mediation is a moot point. Historically, technological advancements have both displaced and created jobs. The industrial revolutions in the past replaced many manual jobs but created new opportunities in factories and industries. In the realm of AI, we see a similar pattern. AI has replaced some jobs, particularly those involving repetitive tasks, but has also created new roles, such as AI trainers and ethicists. 

In mediation, AI’s role has been more about transformation than replacement. According to Robert Bergman, tools like predictive analytics and automated negotiation algorithms like SmartSettle One, Negobot, Modria, etc.  have assisted mediators, particularly in collaborative negotiation, rather than replacing them. Rather than replace the mediator, the AI-assisted tools help the mediator to generate and analyse questionnaires, understand disputing party priorities, and suggest potential areas for negotiation. Despite its advancements, AI in mediation faces significant challenges as well. One of the primary limitations is its inability to fully understand and interpret human emotions and cultural nuances. 

AI systems are also only as good as the data they are trained on, which can lead to biased outcomes if the data is not diverse and comprehensive. Furthermore, AI’s decision-making processes like recognising patterns and correlation can be opaque, leading to trust and credibility issues. In AI, hallucination can occur when the AI model generates output that is not supported by any known facts. This can happen due to errors or inadequacies in the training data or biases in the model itself. A big disadvantage of AI is that it cannot learn to think outside the box. AI is capable of learning over time with pre-fed data and past experiences but cannot be creative in its approach. 

The integration of AI in mediation also brings legal and ethical considerations to the forefront. Questions about accountability, especially in cases of flawed AI-mediated decisions, are paramount. The legal framework governing AI’s role in mediation is still in its nascent stages, requiring careful consideration of issues like data privacy, consent and liability. Although there is a beginning of worldwide effort to regulate AI, we are far from having an agreed upon framework. Different nations harbour varied perspectives on the deployment and control of AI technologies, influenced by their unique socio-political and economic contexts.

Ethical frameworks

Addressing these ethical considerations requires a collaborative effort among AI developers, mediators, ethicists, and legal professionals. The development and implementation of AI in mediation should be guided by ethical frameworks and standards that prioritise fairness, transparency, and respect for human dignity, argues Robert Bergman. Rather than outright replacement, a more likely scenario is AI transforming the role of mediators. AI and decision analytics can handle certain tasks like preliminary data gathering, analysing documents, understanding priorities, identifying areas for negotiation, or drafting initial settlement proposals. This integration allows human mediators to focus on more complex aspects of the mediation process, such as understanding emotional undercurrents and building trust among parties.

While AI brings efficiency and a data-driven approach to mediation, it is not poised to replace human mediators entirely. The current limitations of AI in understanding the full spectrum of human emotions and cultural contexts, coupled with legal and ethical concerns, suggest a future where AI acts more as an assistant than a replacement. The evolution of AI in mediation is likely to follow the historical pattern of technology reshaping rather than eradicating jobs, leading to a transformed landscape where human mediators leverage AI for enhanced effectiveness and reach. As this field evolves, continuous evaluation and adaptation will be crucial in ensuring that integrating AI in mediation serves to augment, rather than undermine, the human element that is so vital to conflict resolution.