3 ms·

In normal contracting the paper is the source code and you need to find some real live people to be the compiler. Sometimes it's everyday people, sometimes ope

In normal contracting the paper is the source code and you need to find some real live people to be the compiler. Sometimes it's everyday people, sometimes operations professionals, developers, finance or legal personnel. Ultimately you always can fall back on the court or arbitrator as the ultimate compiler and interpreter. So, different compilers maybe for smart contracts? ....

jrm4 5y ago
I'm trying to roll with you on this idea, but I can't help but think that this is just a square-peg round-hole thing. I am a (mostly non-practicing) lawyer; but I teach IT full time. Like "A.I," a lot of people dream about the idea of revolutionizing or strongly improving on law via code, and I don't see it happening, ever. It's this well meaning and seductive idea that we can leverage the superior power of computery thought and ideas to "correct" the foibles of humans -- but I think "human disputes" are too slippery to be bound by code, and the beauty and triumph of "law" as a system is that it too is slippery enough to manage it reasonably. To me it's strongly related to the complete layman fantasy of "well, they should have just written the law more clearly and everything would be fine."
- unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
  Yes, and the reverse also is an interesting thought exercise-- if this paper contract really was a piece of software, what would folks do to QA it, write it, interpret it. I mean, paper contracts are written using hopelessly buggy and ambiguous human languages theoretically capable of so many non-harmonious interpretations. The solution really is about friendly, trusted compilers approaching the contracts from a fundamentally cooperative direction. You write a contract with your trusted partner on a napkin at dinner. And when trust fails, courts interpret in an explicitly prosocial way.
- Beldin 5y ago
  Don't discount the capriciousness of the law's execution. In many cases, being the right skin color and wealthy comes across like a superpower compared to Joe Average. I'd hazard a guess that many "use code for law" types basically want to put Lady Justice's blindfold back. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor that is bad. It comes from good intentions, is all. (Very aware that those can be used for paving certain roads)
  - jrm4 5y ago
    Back? :) Sure, I get the impulse to try and that in many ways is the lovely thing about the spirit of tech and hackery... buuuut also I'm a black man whos seen e.g. entirely too much "oh they were well intentioned" when the AI thought the black folks were monkeys. So, yeaaaah, not holding my breath. :)

jrm4 5y ago

I'm trying to roll with you on this idea, but I can't help but think that this is just a square-peg round-hole thing. I am a (mostly non-practicing) lawyer; but I teach IT full time. Like "A.I," a lot of people dream about the idea of revolutionizing or strongly improving on law via code, and I don't see it happening, ever. It's this well meaning and seductive idea that we can leverage the superior power of computery thought and ideas to "correct" the foibles of humans -- but I think "human disputes" are too slippery to be bound by code, and the beauty and triumph of "law" as a system is that it too is slippery enough to manage it reasonably. To me it's strongly related to the complete layman fantasy of "well, they should have just written the law more clearly and everything would be fine."

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
Yes, and the reverse also is an interesting thought exercise-- if this paper contract really was a piece of software, what would folks do to QA it, write it, interpret it. I mean, paper contracts are written using hopelessly buggy and ambiguous human languages theoretically capable of so many non-harmonious interpretations. The solution really is about friendly, trusted compilers approaching the contracts from a fundamentally cooperative direction. You write a contract with your trusted partner on a napkin at dinner. And when trust fails, courts interpret in an explicitly prosocial way.
Beldin 5y ago
Don't discount the capriciousness of the law's execution. In many cases, being the right skin color and wealthy comes across like a superpower compared to Joe Average. I'd hazard a guess that many "use code for law" types basically want to put Lady Justice's blindfold back. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor that is bad. It comes from good intentions, is all. (Very aware that those can be used for paving certain roads)
- jrm4 5y ago
  Back? :) Sure, I get the impulse to try and that in many ways is the lovely thing about the spirit of tech and hackery... buuuut also I'm a black man whos seen e.g. entirely too much "oh they were well intentioned" when the AI thought the black folks were monkeys. So, yeaaaah, not holding my breath. :)