News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by hwillis on Thursday January 26, 2023 @10:29AM (#34532880)
> One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff.

1. Laws are written or at least voted on by representatives, and they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Also, they're pretty regularly swapped out and often totally bonkers. Especially at the state level.

2. Things change. Look at how the right of search and seizure is applied to digital data and metadata.

3. Most importantly, the imprecision is intentional. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" has no definition because it is up to the person rendering judgement. The courts decide the bounds of the law, and within those bounds people decide how to apply them.

Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by whamlastxmas on Thursday January 26, 2023 @10:44AM (#34533139)
> they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand

They don’t even read the things they vote on. They’re huge and it’d be a full time job.

Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by Dalewyn on Thursday January 26, 2023 @10:45AM (#34533150)
>they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by Nifty3929 on Thursday January 26, 2023 @11:28AM (#34533863)
A recent US president said about a large bill "we have to pass it just to see what's in it."
Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by gnicholas on Thursday January 26, 2023 @11:39AM (#34534055)
I'm unaware of a President saying that. Sounds more like the Nancy Pelosi (then House Minority Leader, subsequently Speaker of the House), talking about Obamacare: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the...
Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by snowwrestler on Thursday January 26, 2023 @12:00PM (#34534487)
It was, and the context was the well-known tendency of the Washington press to only cover the fight until a bill passes, and only then turn toward explaining the substance of what just passed.

(It makes sense from the press perspective, as the substance is changing constantly in big bills right up until it passes… that’s what the fight is all about.)

Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by hgsgm on Thursday January 26, 2023 @01:08PM (#34535892)
It's not about the press, it's about how until a House passes a bill that is sent to reconciliatio, there literally isn't "a bill", there is a constant flux of amendments.
Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by theflyingelvis on Thursday January 26, 2023 @12:29PM (#34535067)
Re:An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyer... by some_random on Thursday January 26, 2023 @11:33AM (#34533939)
Laws are absolutely passed without understanding of what's in them, very frequently in fact