&gt;&gt; How in the hell is a computer ever going to make determinations about the reasonable likelihood of human actors that are sufficient to have as bases for contract conditions?<p>I&#x27;m afraid this is not as far-fetched as you may think.<p>Determining what is a &quot;reasonable likelihood&quot; of any event is basically the
essence of Bayeasian analysis, a well-understood branch of mathematics that
deals with states of belief. In fact, determining what is a reasonable state of
belief, given some information about a certain situation is the whole point of
Bayesian probabilities.<p>To give you an example, in the case of &quot;there is reasonable likelihood that
there will be no further suits filed against [x]&quot; someone may well gather some
evidence to build a model of the kind of people who are likely to file suits
against entities similar to [x], then use that model to argue that person A is
very likely to do so.<p>Personally speaking, I think this is a crap way to reason about human behaviour
but then again, if you throw enough maths at an argument, eventually most people
will back down, and let you have your way.<p>P.S. Sorry if this isn&#x27;t clear above: the process of building a model and using
it to estimate the likelihood of an event is fully automatable.