3 ms·

How about: Code is more explicit and reliable than existing law, so it makes sense to try and make future law out of code. Making graft visible is a feature, n

by trevyn 5y ago

How about: Code is more explicit and reliable than existing law, so it makes sense to try and make future law out of code. Making graft visible is a feature, not a bug.

meheleventyone 5y ago
Sounds more like a misunderstanding of why there are differences between code and law. Also code more reliable, unless you have a bug and someone siphons off millions of dollars of your customers money, irretrievably?
- trevyn 5y ago
  That’s also a feature. I understand if you don’t see it that way.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Not the first time someone's tried to sell a bug to me as a feature! But it is the first time someone's done it as an evidence free assertion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lxgr 5y ago
Even in computer programming, it makes sense to use the language most suitable to solve the problem at hand. Most humans don't speak programming languages. Yes, you probably could formulate an employment contract in Rust – just like you could write a graphics driver in Rockstar [1]. And yes, many legal systems in the world are slow, inefficient, and prone to be gamed by the wealthy and powerful. I'd really rather we don't add a second layer of indirection and gatekeeping on top of or beneath that. [1] https://codewithrockstar.com/ https://codewithrockstar.com/
- trevyn 5y ago
  Most humans don’t have an accurate understanding of legal language either, but it’s even worse, because they think they understand it. Even those that do understand can’t rely on a specific outcome. The refrain I keep hearing is “I’d rather we didn’t”, but all the incentives are aligned such that it is clear that we almost certainly will, if we don’t already behind closed doors. I’d rather we didn’t have lethal autonomous weapons systems too, but we do, and I’m willing to bet they’re not going away. So, while we have the chance, should we develop the laws by which they operate in cleartext in public, or hidden inside of existing bureaucracies and autocracies?
tomc1985 5y ago
I don't really agree with this... for one, legalese is actually very specific for the domain with which it is written (and that specificity is part of why it is so hard to read); and for another, the code in front of you might be explicit and "reliable", but can you say the same about the functions and libraries that it calls?

by trevyn 5y ago

How about: Code is more explicit and reliable than existing law, so it makes sense to try and make future law out of code. Making graft visible is a feature, not a bug.

meheleventyone 5y ago

Sounds more like a misunderstanding of why there are differences between code and law. Also code more reliable, unless you have a bug and someone siphons off millions of dollars of your customers money, irretrievably?

trevyn 5y ago
That’s also a feature. I understand if you don’t see it that way.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Not the first time someone's tried to sell a bug to me as a feature! But it is the first time someone's done it as an evidence free assertion.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lxgr 5y ago

Even in computer programming, it makes sense to use the language most suitable to solve the problem at hand. Most humans don't speak programming languages. Yes, you probably could formulate an employment contract in Rust – just like you could write a graphics driver in Rockstar [1]. And yes, many legal systems in the world are slow, inefficient, and prone to be gamed by the wealthy and powerful. I'd really rather we don't add a second layer of indirection and gatekeeping on top of or beneath that. [1] https://codewithrockstar.com/ https://codewithrockstar.com/

trevyn 5y ago
Most humans don’t have an accurate understanding of legal language either, but it’s even worse, because they think they understand it. Even those that do understand can’t rely on a specific outcome. The refrain I keep hearing is “I’d rather we didn’t”, but all the incentives are aligned such that it is clear that we almost certainly will, if we don’t already behind closed doors. I’d rather we didn’t have lethal autonomous weapons systems too, but we do, and I’m willing to bet they’re not going away. So, while we have the chance, should we develop the laws by which they operate in cleartext in public, or hidden inside of existing bureaucracies and autocracies?

tomc1985 5y ago

I don't really agree with this... for one, legalese is actually very specific for the domain with which it is written (and that specificity is part of why it is so hard to read); and for another, the code in front of you might be explicit and "reliable", but can you say the same about the functions and libraries that it calls?