11 ms·
I remember thinking that this was a good idea, in my first year of law. By the third year I had rather given up on the idea. Legal writing is already well-spe
by jacques_chester 10y ago
I remember thinking that this was a good idea, in my first year of law.
By the third year I had rather given up on the idea.
Legal writing is already well-specified. The problem is not with the language that the law is written in. The problem is that the world is irreducibly complex and the law cannot shrink its domain from "everything humans have done, do, will do, or could do; interacting with other humans, dead, alive, unborn; interacting with objects, in their homes, in public, on private property, belonging to them, belonging to others, belonging to nobody; on the surface of the earth, underneath the earth, in the seas, in the international seas, in the skies, in orbit, on the moon, the limits of human space; with ideas, owned and unowned, with multiple kinds of ownership; in concert with other legal systems, or in contrast, or in direct mutually incompatible conflict; without limit, forever".
Which is probably a fraction of it.
Quite aside from scope, there is ordinary fuzzy logic: in coming to a conclusion, judges must give consideration to concepts that cannot be crisply, discretely encoded: "the buyer without notice at arm's length", the "reasonable person, similarly circumstanced" and so forth.
These are all supported by cases. Mounds and mounds of cases. Case-based reasoning is a well-explored area of AI, but it hasn't been to any avail. Civil legal systems try to go without caselaw and have pure statute in the fashion that this kind of idle daydream typically tries to express.
And they've had hundreds and hundreds of years to get the "perfect" drafting. Bugs are still showing up. All that it does is shift the burden of adjustment to a slower, central bureaucracy from a self-correcting, distributed, multi-level system.
We still need humans to make sense of humans. For the foreseeable future this can be expected to continue. The law isn't going anywhere.
- denzil_correa 10y ago> Legal writing is already well-specified. The problem is not with the language that the law is written in. I was initially happy with the title of the article but this is exactly the reason why the content left me disappointing. It is very difficult to capture law in a computational context and there are interesting forums these days. That said, there are interesting questions to ask. * What are the properties to make a law (fully/partially) computational? * What stages of time could law be made computational? Time, number of cases etc. * What laws could be made computational and what can not? Are there laws that could never be made computational? Are there laws that could be made fully computational? Are there laws that could be partially computational? * What are the effects of computational law on the legal ecosystem? Would it give rise to less better lawyers and judges? I think such questions need investigation (if not already done).
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoIndeed. All law relies on the inductive judgements of the, well, judge. You can't write inductive reasoning in Coq, and you probably won't be able to for a rather long time.