Comment by sdfhbdf
5 years ago
The reason why law, especially criminal, can't be expressed via bytecode is mostly because law in action is enforced selectively based on social effects. There are too many edge cases, circumstances and such to be able to with a binary output apply it to a situation.
There is a possiblity of automating the mundane, the administrative tasks, which seems like this language is taking a shot at - tax law - or such, but probably in the end we will start transitioning to law that just mentions that the taxes are counted by an algorithm and the algorithm is published on GitHub.
Using software metaphors, I think law has too much responsiblites and we need to decouple some stuff.
Source: I am law student, software engineer.
This is nonsense. We can use these techniques even when "inputs" are somewhat subjective. They point is to separate the boring mechanical parts from the interesting parts.
This type of argument is the same as the people arguing types are bad because they alone don't ensure program correctness. They don't need to. They take care of the boring bits freeing up the mind to think about the interesting parts.
I think what would matter isn't the application of it, but writing the law in a way that can be analized better than in a sentenced format
It’s also not as easily biasable.