The answer depends on whether it raises your prospect of reaching a settlement and, if so, whether your interests are better served than if you had not used it.
If your question is prompted by a lack of confidence in your legal advisors, there will be others available without a need to depend on AI for support.
Any use of AI must be mutually agreed with the other participant in the mediation. Do you already have their agreement? If so, you might use AI to explore a range of negotiation strategies or to identify some opening offers. But this is already the role of your legal advisor, and they are better placed to tailor settlement terms to your personal needs.
Remember that using AI necessitates you uploading your documents to your chosen provider. Extreme caution is needed in doing so, as this will often put your documents into the public domain, waiving the privileged status of those documents. This entitles others people in any future litigation with you to have sight of those documents, potentially damaging your position. You would only take this risk having obtained competent legal advice.
What if the other party is using AI already? Did you agree to permit this? The question of whether to accept a settlement offer generated by AI is often more nuanced than whether the offer is logical or “intelligent”. Your decision to accept or refuse may be driven by a variety of unspoken factors that can be hard to articulate: matters of principle, ways to honour someone no longer alive or simply wanting a fair way to escape from the dispute. While AI may generate broadly useful settlement ideas, it cannot detect or target these instinctive feelings. AI bases its suggestions on a model of you that it has created, rather than you yourself. So don’t be surprised if, after accepting an offer generated by AI, you find yourself haunted by the question “could I have done better in that settlement?”. My current advice is not to rely on AI in mediation to provide anything more than inspiration for general settlement options.