The End of Fine Print in Contracts

How Plain English and AI Just Changed Everything

This isn’t legal advice, and I’m not a lawyer.

“Didn’t you read the fine print?” Not anymore. There is no fine print.

A New Kind of Agreement

When two people write a deal in plain English and email it to each other, they’re not just making an agreement — they’re creating something a modern AI can understand, interpret, and help enforce.

In the past, resolving disputes meant one of three things:

- Lawyers and courtrooms, with months (or years) of delay and cost

- Out-of-court arbitration, which still often requires legal infrastructure and fees

- Letting it go, even if it was unfair

Now, there’s a fourth option: neutral interpretation by AI.

A modern language model doesn’t apply rigid rules to every word. It interprets meaning the way a thoughtful third party would — based on how people actually speak and understand.

And in some ways, it’s better than a third party:

- It doesn’t have a stake in the outcome

- It isn’t influenced by reputation, bias, or memory

- It reads exactly what you wrote, no more, no less

Contracts That Don’t Need a Translator

Traditional legal contracts are written like computer programs. Each clause anticipates edge cases. Each word is carefully chosen to avoid risk.

That works — sometimes. But it also alienates the very people it’s supposed to protect.

AI doesn’t need translation. If you say, “You can borrow my car as long as you fill up the tank,” it understands. Not just the syntax, but the tone. The intention.

That’s not a shortcut. That’s progress.

How It Works

1. Write your agreement in plain English.

Say exactly what you mean. No legalese required.

2. Send it by email.

That’s your timestamp. That’s your record.

3. If a disagreement arises, submit the dispute to a public AI model

Like the default, memoryless version of ChatGPT, or another language model you both agree on.

4. Let the model interpret what was meant — not as legal advice, but as the final, neutral reading both parties agreed to follow.

Enforceability — Like Arbitration

It’s not a gimmick. It’s arbitration, brought up to date.

Two parties agreeing in advance to let a neutral third party resolve disputes is already common — in business, finance, and international law.

But a note of caution:

In some jurisdictions, arbitrators must be licensed. If that’s true where you live, this method might not be enforceable in court.

Still, many disputes never reach court — they’re settled through mutual agreement. A neutral AI interpretation can help both sides move on without escalating the conflict.

Example: One Clause, Two Worlds

Scenario:

Vista Media creates documentary videos. Redline Syndication helps distribute and monetize them. They’ve agreed to share ad revenue and want a clear way to resolve any future disputes.

Plain English – AI-Readable Version

Subject: Revenue and Dispute Terms

Vista Media and Redline Syndication agree to split net ad revenue from their video projects: 60% to Vista, 40% to Redline.

If a disagreement arises, both parties agree to submit this contract to the most recent publicly available version of ChatGPT, in its default configuration, with no user-specific memory, and using its general-purpose reasoning mode. If that model is unavailable, both parties will mutually select the closest equivalent AI model widely recognized for fair and unbiased interpretation of plain English. They agree to accept the model’s interpretation as final.

Traditional Legalese Version

Section 3.4 – Compensation and Revenue Allocation

Licensee shall remit to Licensor sixty percent (60%) of all Net Revenues, defined as gross proceeds from advertising placements directly attributable to the Licensed Works, less platform-imposed fees, chargebacks, and third-party content identification claims. Remittances shall occur on a quarterly basis no later than thirty (30) days following the close of each calendar quarter, accompanied by a detailed revenue statement.

Section 6.8 – Dispute Resolution

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the interpretation or enforcement thereof, shall be submitted to binding arbitration under the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Venue shall be mutually agreed or, if unresolved, determined by the arbitrator. The Parties expressly waive any right to trial by jury and agree to be bound by the arbitrator’s decision as final and enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

Notice how the plain English version summarizes the essential terms in just a few clear sentences, making the agreement immediately understandable to anyone, while the traditional legal version sprawls with dense, technical language. This stark contrast shows how plain language—and AI as an impartial interpreter—can cut through legal jargon to resolve disputes on demand and without bias.

A Note on Ambiguity

AI doesn’t fear ambiguity. It thrives on it. It’s trained on human language in all its messy, imprecise, overlapping richness.

That’s what makes this work. Not because ambiguity disappears — but because it becomes interpretable.

In a legal system built on the rejection of ambiguity, that’s a revolution.

No Lawyers. No Apps. No Fine Print.

Just plain language, mutual understanding, and an interpreter that treats natural communication as a feature, not a flaw.

This isn’t about replacing the legal system. It’s about recognizing that for many of the agreements we make every day, we’ve never needed one.

Now we have another option — and it speaks human.