"That rhythm is baked into representations, notice provisions, audit rights, and remediation clauses. AI is quietly breaking that rhythm. As software begins to monitor, decide, and act continuously within defined parameters, contracts are starting to show strain. Not because anyone suddenly believes machines are autonomous in a sci-fi sense, but because the assumptions underlying contract structure no longer map cleanly to how systems behave."
"Strip away the buzzwords, and "agentic" AI isn't about independent intent. It's about continuity. These systems don't wait for discrete instructions. They operate within guardrails, monitor signals in real time, and act unless or until a threshold is crossed. Humans still define the boundaries, but they aren't involved in every decision. That distinction matters legally. Contracts have always governed action. They just assumed action happened in bursts rather than streams."
Most contracts assume discrete human decisions and intermittent system actions, with obligations fixed at signing and remedies triggered by identifiable events. Continuous AI systems operate within guardrails, monitor signals in real time, and take actions unless thresholds intervene, creating ongoing behavioral change rather than isolated events. That continuity undermines traditional representations, notice provisions, audit regimes, and remediation clauses. Evolving models complicate questions about when a change occurred, which obligation applies, and when notice should be given. Static contractual promises therefore remain valid but incomplete for continuous systems. In 2025, some commercial agreements began to adapt through experimental governance measures.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]