Abstract In March 2025 the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School hosted a two-day Summit at MIT on AI and negotiation. One panel at the summit explored several approaches to designing and using AI as a teacher. This article discusses the papers presented on that panel. The summit made clear that AI already has transformed how negotiation is studied, taught, and practiced—by enhancing preparation, encouraging deeper analysis, facilitating consensus-building, enhancing training access, and offering real-time coaching. Each of these developments offers both opportunities and pitfalls. When designing negotiation courses or training programs, instructors must make a number of pedagogical choices: What readings will students be assigned? What learning points will instructors cover in lectures and in-class conversation? What in-class exercises or role-play simulations will be assigned? What kinds of written reflections should instructors ask students to submit following each role-play? What prescriptive lessons do instructors want students to draw from role-plays and debriefings? In this article, the author offers answers to all these questions, especially in regard to the pros and cons of using GenAI assistance of various kinds.
Lawrence Susskind (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: