I have published some research on using LLMs for mediation here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16732 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07053

These papers describe the LLMediator, a platform that uses LLMs to:

a) ensure a discussion maintains a positive tone by flagging and offering reformulated versions of messages that may derail the conversation

b) suggest intervention messages that the mediator can use to intervene in the discussion and guide the parties toward a positive outcome.

Overall, LLMs seem to be very good at these tasks, and even compared favourably to human-written interventions. Very excited about the potential of LLMs to lower the barrier to mediation, as it has a lot of potential to resolve disputes in a positive and collaborative manner.

This said, I think the challenging part for the users is clearly setting the utility function. I agree LLMs can help there, but I have few concerns wrt that.

But when one side is indifferent to something the other side cares deeply about, yet has veto power to spoil it, a Nash agreement isn't going to be "fair" in the usual sense of the word.

Once you formalize preferences into something comparable, you’re already making a lot of assumptions about how people value outcomes.

Last year I built https://andshake.app to prevent the need for conflict resolution… by getting things clear up front.

I agree that AI has much to offer in low-stakes agreements to help people move forward in cooperation.

Do you want the first link "How it Works" to really be just the # of front page? it makes it feel like it's broken if someone clicks it. Also your blog about Nash Bargaining is almost more of a "How it Works" page than the How it Works page is.

I feel like your landing page very quickly told me what your website does which is great. If the Nash Bargaining is the "wedge" to separate you from the pack, I'd try explain how that differentiates this over the others as quickly as possible. I know that's easier said than done. Good luck!

Is anyone working on this ? seems like a big win for AI if it can be done.

That said, given the fictional example:

Honestly I’m on Daniel’s side - they agreed on a 50/50 split, and they’ve both been working their asses off to make the business work. It’s an arrangement that clearly both of them have been actively participating in, not trying to push back against, for a year and a half.

And the supposed insight this product offers is to… split the difference? Between Maya’s power play for 70/30, and Daniel’s insistence on the original 50/50? 60/40 is the brilliant proposal?

How could they stand to work together afterwards, knowing she thinks she deserves 70% of the profit, but was willing to ‘settle’ for 60%? Why would you want to keep working with someone who screwed you over that way? Their partnership is toast. All the mediation really does is… I don’t know, what? How is this good for Daniel? This ain’t any kind of reconciliation, surely.

Is the argument that it’d be easier for her to get a new baker, than it is for him to get a new business manager?