Timeline for LawTech: How to systematically express Positivist-Law frameworks as control flow algorithm systems and automate statutary-construction analysis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2021 at 10:57 | comment | added | aarek-eng | That could do with a little more explanation. | |
| Jun 8, 2021 at 9:44 | comment | added | aarek-eng | As you say, even Math & Physics cannot be "perfect" or "complete", but we've automated the hell out of them anyway, and that didn't diminish the work and role of scientists and engineers, it just saved on tedious pen-and-paper calculations and onerous destructive testing of prototypes, in favour of virtual simulations more complex than any human brain could imagine. Laws are drafted by assemblies of elected officials that may not be legal experts (or experts in anything), and understood, obeyed by laypeople, who rely on the Law's protection. Shouldn't their work be eased as much as possible? | |
| Jun 8, 2021 at 9:32 | comment | added | aarek-eng | I'm aware of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but it's not relevant here -I wasn't asking about completely automating law into a perfectly logical system so that a robot can do all the work. I was asking about ways of presenting laws and, possibly, legal systems, in a way that highlights and clarifies its requirements and consequences and eases testing it for loopholes, undersirable end states, ambiguities, etc., and then ways of automating as much of that work as possible. To create a "handle" that makes law easier to grasp, wield, study and improve, not about aiming for Platonic perfection. | |
| Jun 7, 2021 at 22:28 | history | answered | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |