EDIT - in all fairness I find the blog entry much more persuasive: https://mediator.ai/blog/ai-negotiation-nash-bargaining/

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?

▲

AnthonyR 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah I also don't quite understand the example on the homepage... they agreed to 50/50 and then she wanted 70/30 so now they settle on 60/40? Like this doesn't seem like a "fair" mediation it's kind of weird (obviously oversimplifying the situation a bit but nonetheless I'm not sure real world conflicts are this simple in practice)

▲

sanity 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You raise a good point. The issue is presentation - leading with the 60/40 reads like midpoint arbitration, whereas the interesting part is Daniel's path back to 50/50, the management salary, the mutual waiver on the first 18 months (which is what settles his rent contribution), and the shotgun buy-sell.

I've made some changes that should help with this.

▲

alex43578 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They wanted 50/50, but from the vignette Daniel didn’t continue to do 50% of the work.

▲

mock-possum 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, he just continued to take sole responsibility for the production of the product, quality and quantity, while also holding down an additional job, which paid the rent.

These characters have both been putting the work in.

I’d be looking for a serpent at his partner’s ear, planting poisonous suggestions that she deserves more of the company they started equally. If this were real.

▲

lookACamel 4 days ago | parent [-]

> While also holding down an additional job

That's the problem, the story is saying he stopped focusing full-time on the business in order to make his own ends meet. It looks like the main innovation of the mediator generated deal is that it attempts to reconcile by drafting a way back in to 50/50 if he recommits. The starting 60/40 split is not that important.

▲

throwanem 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Her ends, too. They share an apartment, in the story.

This is certainly an example of what I would expect from a product designed to optimize a prenup. You know, they say money ruins people, but sometimes you just have to acknowledge there was nothing really ever there decent to begin with.

▲

lookACamel 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah after re-reading the scenario it is pretty weird. The AI doesn't have enough data. There should be concrete numbers for the rent. Why wouldn't Daniel tell the LLM exactly how much it was?

	▲	throwanem 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Well, I don't know, I'm sure. Totally unrelated, I hear a common piece of advice for the aspiring con artist is to avoid overcomplicating the legend.

▲

gavinray 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

He paid her rent