3 ms·

> I almost wish we had a formal system of language You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to pro

by evv 8y ago

> I almost wish we had a formal system of language You mean "legalese"? The language used in law is very specific and nuanced. I enjoy how similar it is to programming, where a bug in the source language can be exploited, much how imperfections in legal documents can be used as a loophole. I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents. If developed in the open, any lawyer could theoretically contribute and help avoid loopholes for everyone. In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts that are easy for all parties to understand.

acobster 8y ago
> In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code? Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)
- epicureanideal 8y ago
  Maybe more similar to strongly typed languages vs weakly typed languages rather than frameworks. Static types, linters, virus scanners, etc.
denkmoon 8y ago
Fortunately in software we can patch in a matter of moments. Unfortunately bugs written in legalese tend to take years or decades to patch.
Xcelerate 8y ago
> You mean "legalese"? No, more so something that could be verified using an interactive theorem prover; e.g., Coq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq). All lawsuits would then consist of running a computer program against the legal "code".
seltzered_ 8y ago
>I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents I think that's what Meng Wong's startup 'legalese.com' is for: https://legalese.com/ https://legalese.com/ He gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8

by evv 8y ago

acobster 8y ago

> In theory we could build a framework that makes it easy to write loophole-free contracts You mean similar to how, in theory, we could build a framework that makes it easy for us all to write readable, bug-free code? Edit: I was mostly being tongue in cheek, but I also recognize that this is about provably correct code à la Coq, etc. That'd be cool for sure. :)

epicureanideal 8y ago
Maybe more similar to strongly typed languages vs weakly typed languages rather than frameworks. Static types, linters, virus scanners, etc.

denkmoon 8y ago

Fortunately in software we can patch in a matter of moments. Unfortunately bugs written in legalese tend to take years or decades to patch.

Xcelerate 8y ago

> You mean "legalese"? No, more so something that could be verified using an interactive theorem prover; e.g., Coq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq). All lawsuits would then consist of running a computer program against the legal "code".

seltzered_ 8y ago

>I'd love to see a software system that is able to reliably output high-quality legal documents I think that's what Meng Wong's startup 'legalese.com' is for: https://legalese.com/ https://legalese.com/ He gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGqifLBsy8