Hello everyone!

[parkjunwoo]

here are some essays i had read a while ago about writing laws as code... and some of the problems with that approach.

this is obviously a very complex philosophical and political problem which people are dealing with around the world right now. and this will likely evolve over the next centuries  or millenia.. in real life and within the OA setting , presumably.

and since i am neither a lawyer nor a professional software engineer, I won't pretend to understand these topics in depth, beyond the words in the essays.

These essays articulate many of the concerns i have with the approach you might be describing in v-system. - that "Code is Law" and "laws can be implemented as code and be perfect and logical and can be universally executed..
so perhaps reading through these will give inspiration for how v-system could go wrong..
like in many science fiction stories, you say "here is a technology and it works this way... but what happens when it goes wrong??" then drama happens

https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2021/09...ood-thing/
https://dtinit.org/blog/2023/08/01/law-isnt-code

https://www.geeklawblog.com/2024/12/when...-code.html

OA is science fiction of course so it's quite possible you could write about v-system implemented in OA.. but i imagine there are a wide variety of problems and barriers you could describe in the worldbuilding too..

I completely agree with your point that turning laws into pure code presents enormous philosophical and practical challenges, and I appreciate you sharing these essays. I've also encountered some similar arguments and discussions about the complexity and potential pitfalls of the "Code is Law" approach.
However, I also believe our current legal systems around the world are already deeply flawed and often unjust—subject to ambiguity, human bias, and inconsistency. My thinking is that, even though encoding laws into logical systems might introduce new types of errors, it could ultimately offer us the crucial advantage of clarity, transparency, and predictability.
Most importantly, by removing irreversible or severe penalties and instead focusing on reparative and corrective measures, we can create opportunities to identify and correct mistakes when they inevitably occur. In other words, rather than pursuing a perfect, error-free legal code—which I agree is impossible—we can instead design a system built around graceful failure and correction, a more forgiving and adaptable legal infrastructure.
In the end, I think the drama you mention—"what happens when it goes wrong?"—is exactly what makes this idea fascinating from a storytelling and philosophical standpoint. I'm excited to explore precisely those questions, and I'm open to learning from your perspectives and experiences as well.
Thanks again for the thoughtful feedback, and I look forward to discussing and refining these concepts further with everyone here.