Surely the human language equivalent of programming is recipes and other types of written instructions. Law is far more abstract and subjective than programming.

Law is opposed to these sorts of changes due to the business model of the law firm. In the law firm world billable hours are king. Automation reduces billable hours. No law firm wants to do that.

I think this really depends on what kind of firm you're talking about. You could make the same case for contractors i.e. "billable hours are king". Take the example where you need to paint a house. You could hire someone off the street who does it with a paintbrush and rollers or hire a pro with a sprayer and prep knowledge to do it in 1/4 the time and with 10x the quality.

In this context automation could be a tool that a law firm uses to enhance the quality of their product. Personally, I would pay more for a tech-savvy law firm that embraces automation, not less.

A lot of contractors in painting/drywall do piecework rather than hourly. My roommate has been a drywall taper for 20+ years. When he quotes a job it’s a flat rate and then he tries to finish as fast as possible by using his best tools to speed up the job. On the other hand, if someone hires him on an hourly basis he puts away those fancy tools and does a lot more manual work, getting the job done slowly.

His rationale: why put wear and tear on his expensive tools if it’s just going to reduce his income in the end? Needless to say he prefers piecework because he likes to move from one job to the next as quickly as he can. He makes a lot more money that way.

I think it has more to do with having an adversarial law system. It doesn’t matter what new tool you come up with in the arms race. Your competitor will soon have it as well.

Law is different in most places because the “execution model” isn’t intended to be a process, but is instead a mediated dispute.

Maybe they will converge, and all programs will be written in legalese and interpreted by Copilot.

A'la Ethereum's smart contracts?

Code isn't flexible enough to work for laymen. It feels like you need to be a developer and a lawyer to make a smart contract work as intended.

Maybe that works against my earlier premise, but I don't think that this is the way we want to go.