Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The act of writing programs, and discovering a bottomless well of bugs in those programs, is what has made me respect lawyers all the more.

I do think some tools and practices can be adapted. I think, for example, that expert systems -- whether classical or hybrid a la Watson -- could make a big dent in that $500 figure. That is definitely pursuable.

But humans inject errors, it's what they do best. And outside of a properly formal system (and per Godel, these aren't perfectly usable anyway) the best way to identify errors is ... with another human.

You might say that judges have been performing software inspections for much longer than we have.

Don't get me wrong, law is as slow as frozen honey. But the problem domain is heinously complex and I expect that any software system would reflect that complexity. Given our profession's iffy track record on creating items of massive size and complexity, I lack your transformative enthusiasm.

I am what you might call a cautiously optimistic conservative. Or a pessimistic radical. Not sure. One blogger I host talks about "radical centrism".



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: