5 ms·

This is actually insane. 120,000 comments! To a certain extent if our law is already so complicated that you need to hire a lawyer to understand it that is alre

by pylua 2y ago

This is actually insane. 120,000 comments! To a certain extent if our law is already so complicated that you need to hire a lawyer to understand it that is already a fundamental problem. Simplify the rules, make it easier to understand and reason about. The computers should be able to determine if someone is breaking a law, not trying to check if it is a bad law. We should be using computing power where someone can ask: is this legal ? Can I do this? That’s the true value to society.

romanovcode 2y ago
Most laws have a lot of neuances and edge-cases. That's why the words and language is so important. The more edge-cases are discovered the more complicated the text becomes. I don't think you can easily simplify it tbh.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  That’s not really true though. While legalese creates complexity a substantial part of judicial rulings is figuring out which of it should be ignored because it’s bullshit. A lot of law is driven by arguments of how things ought to be given a loose framework of law and precedent.
wongarsu 2y ago
This kind of comes back to the common law vs civil law system. Most English-speaking countries operate under a common law system where the laws as written down provide the ground work, but precedent set by previous court cases is also legally binding. In contrast most of Europe and South America operates under a civil law system (yes, terrible name, not the opposite of criminal law) where the written law reigns supreme and previous court decisions are merely informing opinions. As you can imagine, algorithmic decisions are incredibly difficult in any common law system. And while they might be viable in a civil law system, you would lose out on the ability of a judge to give consideration to the specific circumstances of each case. In practise both systems end up unwieldy in an attempt to be fair. Common law systems because of the overwhelming amount of precedent to consider, civil law systems because the laws become incredibly long and complex, with complex interactions between laws
- pylua 2y ago
  It seems like the best use of ai / computing power would be to do common law through llm? I understand it’s nuanced and complicated but that seems like a good use case for our current ai systems ? What am I missing ?
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Court isn’t about understanding if action X violates law Y. Analyzing that part is quick in preliminary work. All of the hard work is proving that the defendant performed X, proving they had intent and it wasn’t an accident, etc.
- tzs 2y ago
  How do they achieve consistency in civil laws systems? In the US if say a district court in California and a district court in Oregon adopt incompatible interpretations of a federal law, someone will appeal to the appeals court that covers both California and Oregon, that court will interpret that law and then that is binding in all that states under that appeals court (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). If some other appeals court in some other region goes a different way, it can go to the Supreme Court which makes an interpretation for the whole country. We eventually reach consistency even if Congress is unwilling or unable to revisit the law.
gamblor956 2y ago
Simplify the rules, make it easier to understand and reason about This happens every few decades...A legislature wipes the slate clean and starts fresh with a new, simpler set of laws. Then spend the next few years discovering why the old set of laws was so complicated, as they gradually reintroduce laws to deal with the edge cases, loopholes, etc. that the new laws created. And then you end up with a complicated set of laws again. The people who get hurt when you "simplify" the legal code aren't the corporations; they have the money to get good legal advice, nor the criminals since they don't particularly care about following the law in the first place. It's the common people who get hurt when the law is simplified, because most people are fundamentally law-abiding, and the law is complicated to deal with all the people who are not.

by pylua 2y ago

romanovcode 2y ago

Most laws have a lot of neuances and edge-cases. That's why the words and language is so important. The more edge-cases are discovered the more complicated the text becomes. I don't think you can easily simplify it tbh.

jncfhnb 2y ago
That’s not really true though. While legalese creates complexity a substantial part of judicial rulings is figuring out which of it should be ignored because it’s bullshit. A lot of law is driven by arguments of how things ought to be given a loose framework of law and precedent.

wongarsu 2y ago

This kind of comes back to the common law vs civil law system. Most English-speaking countries operate under a common law system where the laws as written down provide the ground work, but precedent set by previous court cases is also legally binding. In contrast most of Europe and South America operates under a civil law system (yes, terrible name, not the opposite of criminal law) where the written law reigns supreme and previous court decisions are merely informing opinions. As you can imagine, algorithmic decisions are incredibly difficult in any common law system. And while they might be viable in a civil law system, you would lose out on the ability of a judge to give consideration to the specific circumstances of each case. In practise both systems end up unwieldy in an attempt to be fair. Common law systems because of the overwhelming amount of precedent to consider, civil law systems because the laws become incredibly long and complex, with complex interactions between laws

pylua 2y ago
It seems like the best use of ai / computing power would be to do common law through llm? I understand it’s nuanced and complicated but that seems like a good use case for our current ai systems ? What am I missing ?
- kortilla 2y ago
  Court isn’t about understanding if action X violates law Y. Analyzing that part is quick in preliminary work. All of the hard work is proving that the defendant performed X, proving they had intent and it wasn’t an accident, etc.
tzs 2y ago
How do they achieve consistency in civil laws systems? In the US if say a district court in California and a district court in Oregon adopt incompatible interpretations of a federal law, someone will appeal to the appeals court that covers both California and Oregon, that court will interpret that law and then that is binding in all that states under that appeals court (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). If some other appeals court in some other region goes a different way, it can go to the Supreme Court which makes an interpretation for the whole country. We eventually reach consistency even if Congress is unwilling or unable to revisit the law.

gamblor956 2y ago

Simplify the rules, make it easier to understand and reason about This happens every few decades...A legislature wipes the slate clean and starts fresh with a new, simpler set of laws. Then spend the next few years discovering why the old set of laws was so complicated, as they gradually reintroduce laws to deal with the edge cases, loopholes, etc. that the new laws created. And then you end up with a complicated set of laws again. The people who get hurt when you "simplify" the legal code aren't the corporations; they have the money to get good legal advice, nor the criminals since they don't particularly care about following the law in the first place. It's the common people who get hurt when the law is simplified, because most people are fundamentally law-abiding, and the law is complicated to deal with all the people who are not.