I follow, but what I deny is that there is a big overlap in people who are sophisticated enough to understand both the legal requirements of contracts, have the ability to work within this technical framework and <i>still think that having these sorts of things be totally automated is a good idea</i>.<p>Putatively, I should be a prime candidate. I spend my nights and weekends (to the extent I have them) working in node and jquery, I cut my teeth on ANSI C two decades ago, I studied math and physics as an undergrad and now I&#x27;m a full time lawyer.<p>I am deeply, deeply hesitant to use this kind of agreement. It is not that the systems we have are ideal - they are definitely flawed - so my attitude is not that &quot;if it ain&#x27;t broke, don&#x27;t fix it.&quot; The attitude is that of &quot;this is likely to introduce way more risk and uncertainty into processes that are already risky and uncertain.&quot;<p>Let&#x27;s put it yet one other way: if the point of this language is to make things <i>clearer</i> - it fails at the starting line, for the simple reason that 90%+ - probably 99% + - of people that have to deal with contracts cannot make heads or tails of a logical operator, and teaching them to do so with enough comfort that they can parse and evaluate such statements at anything near the speed necessary for commercial applicability is a sisyphean undertaking.