why doesnt computer science correct law books? law is riddled

Because law isn't and can't be a hard science. It has to be internally consistent but it's otherwise predicated by ethics. Sometimes ambiguity is a feature and removing it to favor one interpretation over another is little more than moral judgment. This is a question for the philosophers, not computer scientists.

>>9139088
fpbp

>>9139088
you's still gettin a robot lawyer in ten years jaykwan

that's a really bad idea op, especially given the tendency for engineers and CS people to have the sort of brain damage that makes them think their expertise is somehow transitive to other fields

>>9139059
They cannot even make computers without errors and bugs and with usability, how will they make laws perfect? Politicians on the other hand ... they can't even do shit anything.

>>9139088
The philosophers determined that law would be ontologically objective if we let logic machines in charge of it.

File: robot-2.jpg (8KB, 188x172px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 188x172px

>>9139059
Exception handling aside, there is no way you will convince an authority figure to give up his power for the sake of efficiency. A number of the cases that would be used to establish some form of precedent awareness for a bot are intentionally written to have ambiguity, and obfuscating complexity. Some of the legal writers put in the extra grease to make sure that bots can properly read the material so that they can mask mild corruption for agents sniffing for anomalous activity, and, you know, lawyers are crafty, political, and think long term, and obviously don't want to get replaced by a bot.

Source: I'm an NLP researcher who has to deal with this faggotry