I agree that laws could / should approach software.
But we've been having bugs and exploits in software since the beginning. And law has to cover an even wider field of situations.
No way. Software works for predictable inputs producing well-defined desired outputs. Reality is nothing like this.
Actually good rule systems are ambiguous or weak enough that when someone tries to abuse edge cases, people can turn round and say "no" and the rules don't get in the way.
(mostly) Everyone likes this flexibility.
The question is some people find the cost too much.
Maybe it is better to have a law that is explicitly dumb, in exchange for fast, cheap and predictable (kinda like computers, if you think about it)
Re:How Tech Can Build
by gamblor956 on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @09:07PM
(#22941014)
Humans are not machines, language is not code, and the real world is not binary.
An automated test suite for laws is NP-hard.
Rules can be rewritten in a cohesive way or rules can be written as just an endless series of if statements which may contradict with other if statements.
It would be useful for laws to have an automated test suite so that known good uses cases wouldn't be broken down the road.