
Computational Law, Symbolic Discourse and the AI Constitution - evolve2k
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2016/10/computational-law-symbolic-discourse-and-the-ai-constitution/
======
h4nkoslo
Only someone ~ completely unfamiliar with political science or law would
contend that the problem with existing legal systems is that they're not
mathematically specified in sufficient detail.

Laws are written with intentional ambiguities to allow for flexibility in
application. They are guidelines for the application of power that allow
different parts of a government to coordinate, not "specifications" in any
real sense. To the extent that they don't offer sufficient flexibility to
allow courts, governments, etc. to act as they want, they're simply ignored.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
How is that different from "the law is whatever a judge says it is?"

Once you have some flexibility in a logical system, it's no longer a logical
system.

The way it seems to work at present, we have the worst aspects of a law in
vernacular (not much clarity, hard to predict outcomes) as well as laws in a
formal language (sometimes there's intense ridigity that leads to conclusions
nobody wants, see: minimum sentencing laws, judges saying "my hands are tied")

~~~
h4nkoslo
It's not.

Laws are not a "logical system", nor are they designed to be.

Laws are a fuzzy coordination mechanism around the exercise of power.

(If you have one actor in the power structure who "goes rogue" and has a
wildly differing interpretation than the consensus, they tend to get smacked
down sooner or later, but there is substantial slack both within the system
and over time).

When it serves the interests of the government, laws are in fact specified
reasonably exactly (eg building codes), but they are subject to the same
intentional lacunae (try enforcing a state building code on a federal
building, vs a private building rented by a federal agency).

These are all descriptive statements, not normative statements.

~~~
MarkPNeyer
This is an amazing answer and I like this on a number of levels. You've given
me a number of things to think about. Thank you.

------
MarkPNeyer
It's awesome to read someone else talking about the same thing! I started
working on a prototype of language for discourse here:

[https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop](https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop)

There is a simplified version running a protocol called 'the respect matrix'
here:

github.com/neyer/respect

[http://s3.neyer.me/respect-matrix-slides.pdf](http://s3.neyer.me/respect-
matrix-slides.pdf)

[https://twitter.com/RespectMatrix](https://twitter.com/RespectMatrix)

------
imglorp
This is a dup. Around 5 predecessors this week.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=computational%20law&sort=byPop...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=computational%20law&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

