A peace machine – revealing concessions at the same time

Version 3 · updated Oct 19, 2026

Lue suomeksi →

In an argument, both people may be willing to make concessions, but neither wants to go first. One possibility would be an AI assistant that would help each person clarify their position and prepare a concession privately. Once both had approved their own messages, they would be revealed at the same time. The aim would be to make a joint conversation easier to start and find solutions without either person first having to feel they had lost.

Concept draft: the proposed mediation process is not a tested service or a promise that a dispute will be resolved.

Honkela’s peace machine sought greater understanding

In his 2017 book Rauhankone – tekoälytutkijan testamentti (Peace Machine: An AI Researcher’s Testament), AI researcher Timo Honkela outlined technology that would help people understand one another, handle emotions, and build a more just society. One underlying observation was that people can mean different things by the same words (University of Helsinki research portal).

The idea examined here addresses a practical conversation: could a machine help distinguish feelings, claims, and negotiation needs, and make the first concession easier? It is one possible application within the broad direction Honkela explored, not a claim to have reinvented his vision.

First ease the emotional load, then clarify the issue

The assistant would work in three stages: handling emotions, structuring the issue, and mediation. Initially, each person could describe their experience privately. The machine would help turn an attacking message into something whose underlying concern or need could be heard.

In an imaginary workplace situation, “you always leave everything to me” might become “I want us to agree in advance who is responsible for unfinished tasks.” The user would have to approve the interpretation. The machine must not replace their issue with an easier one merely to make the conversation appear successful.

The aim would be to preserve the experience while reducing unnecessary hurt. A message could also remain unfinished. Someone not yet wanting to talk must not become a problem that the machine insists on solving.

The machine would help identify the actual disagreement

Next, the process would distinguish claims about events, interpretations of them, and wishes for the future. Do the parties disagree about what was agreed, or about whether the agreement was fair? Is the problem workload, lack of appreciation, or unclear responsibility?

The assistant could raise inconsistencies and double standards as questions. If both parties demand freedom for themselves but strict rules for the other, that would be worth making visible. The machine would help examine reasoning, rather than declare someone a hypocrite or treat inferred motives as certain.

Agreement could also be limited. Both might accept a new division of work while retaining different experiences of the past. The service would not need to force those experiences into one narrative.

A concession would wait until both people were ready

The distinctive element would be a joint reveal of concessions. Each person would prepare a message with the assistant that they were willing to share. The assistant would show exactly what text would be shared. Neither message would be revealed until both people had approved their own and the joint reveal.

A concession could acknowledge one’s actions: “It would have been better to tell you about the delay earlier.” It could also concern a future action: “I can take this task if we also agree who is responsible for the next stage.” The purpose would be to lower the barrier to making the first concession.

Simultaneity would not mean equal concessions or require both people to admit the same number of mistakes. A person could also withdraw before the reveal. The process would lose its purpose if the machine started extracting equal amounts of remorse from both sides.

A solution could involve trading different things

The assistant could also seek proposals in which someone concedes on something less important to them in exchange for something more important. In an imaginary team, one person might value a flexible schedule while another wants predictable communication. Flexible working combined with an agreed progress update might provide a solution.

Confidentiality would be central to the design: the aim would be to avoid a permanent archive of private conversations and share nothing without approval. Implementation would require separately verified data handling. A promise in the interface would not establish this by itself.

A human mediator could participate. The assistant should also allow people to stop and seek help elsewhere. The goal would be an understandable, voluntary conversation, rather than agreement at any cost. An empathetic concession would be intended to express understanding; the service could not promise general legal protection for a user’s words.

Novelty (October 2026)

Using AI to clarify messages is already a research topic, as illustrated by LLMediator. The Ashti developer presentation also describes private preparation before a joint conversation, while Smartsettle uses confidential preferences and blind bidding in negotiations. These starting points therefore cannot be treated as this article’s novelty.

The article adds a specific procedure: each person privately formulates a concession, including an emotional acknowledgment, approves the exact message to be shared, and authorizes its simultaneous reveal with the other person’s message. Precisely this combination did not appear in the descriptions checked.

Scale of the problem and potential of the solution

In the near future, ordinary AI assistants could help formulate difficult messages. This proposal would add a shared process for the parties: private preparation, precisely approved sharing, and simultaneous first concessions.

The potential benefit would be a conversation that otherwise never starts, or cooperation that otherwise breaks down. Its value should be studied by asking whether both people felt understood, retained their decision-making power, and upheld any eventual agreement. Simply counting settlements could favor overly easy or pressured outcomes. These effects are not assigned a monetary price here.