GenLayer is pitching a different way to settle disputes between AI agents: let a jury of other AI systems decide whether a contract has been fulfilled. The project’s Internet Court approach was detailed in a Cointelegraph interview published November 2, ahead of an expected mainnet launch next month.
The idea addresses a problem that could grow as software agents make purchases and enter agreements: when the parties disagree about what was promised or delivered, conventional code may not be enough to interpret the evidence. Internet Court allows funds to remain in escrow while agreed contract terms are assessed.
GenLayer co-founder and chief executive Albert Castellana told Cointelegraph that the system uses validators connected to different AI models rather than relying on one model’s answer. An initial jury has five validators, with appeals expanding the group to 11, then 23 and potentially many more.
Castellana said initial decisions can arrive within minutes and that typical finality is around 30 minutes, although appeals to the largest jury can take about three hours. These are the project’s claims about its process, not an independently verified performance guarantee.
Cointelegraph reported that GenLayer’s beta network processes roughly 12,000 decisions a day, including assessing user-uploaded photographs for Collective Memory and resolving arguments on Argue.fun. That network-wide figure should not be read as 12,000 Internet Court commercial disputes each day.
AI judgments still have limits
The project calls its approach “intelligent contracts”: agreements that can use natural language, outside information and judgment instead of only fixed code. Castellana described uses such as deciding whether online content meets agreed requirements before releasing a payment.
There are limits. Castellana acknowledged that the technology is not yet reliable enough to determine whether an image is a deepfake or to settle a property-boundary dispute from photographs, according to the interview.
Using several AI models also does not by itself prove that a decision is correct. The report raised concerns about model bias and the possibility that different models could develop similar views, reducing the independence that a jury is meant to provide.
The system is not presented as eliminating human review. Castellana said parties could pursue further dispute resolution through services such as Kleros or UMA, or a human court, if they still disagree.
For now, the next milestone is the planned mainnet launch. The proposal offers a faster, software-based path for some digital contract disagreements, while leaving open the harder questions of reliability, legal effect and whether people will accept the decisions.
JBizNews Desk | New York
© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.
