The idea here is that we can integrate Common Law as standardly practiced with an Agile Development Path which leads to an evolving legally binding software algorithm.
Let's unpack this into stages: - thought experiments create sample test data - test cases come forwards and are recorded - jurors decide the outcome in a common law process - algorithms are run against test data - the "best" is selected - algorithm recommended for use in contracts - complaints against an algorithm can be directed to court (at a cost) - overturned judgments are fed back into new test data, and algorithm tweaked.
# Thought Experiments
We need data. We need to anticipate and imagine problems. It is also often easier to do this in the abstract, or should we say semi-abstract situation of a thought experiment.
This is because real data is hard to come by. People are shy about revealing areas of personal conflict. The existing law recommends keeping your cards close to your chest until or unless you decide to go to court. And then finally it is embarrassing, and socially difficult to bring disputes - better to get on with things.
For all these reasons it is essential to experiment and imagine scenarios playfully that do not involve real live cases or disputes. However this experimentation needs in turn to be grounded by tying it to the real world.
# Real world cases
Real world cases should be archived sensitively. Where appropriate anonymity should be preserved. However full rich case studies should be collected, using documentary, interview, basically as much data collected as possible, through the most appropriate creative, anthropological and psychologically sensitive and informed techniques available at the time.
Truth is not an easy quality to extract from any given situation. Nature is adept at incentivising the creation of multiple layers of BS. Our job here is to peel them away delicately when we can layer by layer.
One core technique here is the art of Bullshido.