> Perhaps your architecture wouldn't "compile" if the network traffic will go the wrong place, or if a rate limit is above the capacity something is expected to handle, or if the change would impact too many servers at once.
This is an interesting idea. I'm always terrified when I have to deploy a minor configuration change into a production system that gets distributed out; if there was an easy way to apply some sort of check against all of it (you know without having to build something explicitly to do this) that would be awesome.
I wonder if the future of something like this might be using containers. Each piece that gets deployed is in its own container networked together and you stand it up in a staging environment, ensure it's talking together correctly through some sort of set of integration tests then push it into the production environment.
I wish the law could be statically checked. In the US at least you are, at any given moment, likely breaking a law because for each and every law, there is one that contradicts it (at least partially).
Reminds me of Godel's incompleteness theorem which says that you can't have a set of axioms which are both complete and consistent. I don't understand law or this theorem (and its implications) well enough, but I felt this has some relation here.
Quite likely you'd first have to invent strong AI which would give you a chance of defining a coherent theory of law which is really a tangled mess. Pretty sure no human has capacity to do it on their own in the foreseeable future.
I think I'd approach the problem from the other end, find a way to write laws such that they are checkable with assertions, properties, and constraints.
This would be amazing. If we had this the first line of judges could just be automated. Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Then if you appeal you can seek a human judge in case judgement / exceptions need to be made (so say you technically broke a law but it was actually necessary / a good thing then you have recourse). First appeals could be very quick, less traffic to first human judge, etc.
Hell even without automated the justice system just doing as you suggested alone would be amazing. I've often wondered about putting laws in GIT or similar.
This can be solved by proportional punishments. Then just not breaking the law, and just breaking the law gives similar outcomes (nothing vs slap on wrist)
Yes but only with the provisions I added that you didn't include in your quote :) (e.g. quick, efficient appeals process to where I can talk with a human judge). Plus the laws would have to be written in this fashion so it would be far, far less murky than what it is today.
So that's a lot of ifs and provisions...so I wouldn't expect this to happen ever.
There is one to one correspondence between types and propositions, so I think it wouldn't do much with theory. I wonder type system expressive enough to encode laws would be decidable (at-least practically at scale of whole constitution) at first place.
In many cases you can do staged or partial rollouts, observe error rates or whatever suitable metrics you have, and then continue with the next bunch of servers.
This is an interesting idea. I'm always terrified when I have to deploy a minor configuration change into a production system that gets distributed out; if there was an easy way to apply some sort of check against all of it (you know without having to build something explicitly to do this) that would be awesome.
I wonder if the future of something like this might be using containers. Each piece that gets deployed is in its own container networked together and you stand it up in a staging environment, ensure it's talking together correctly through some sort of set of integration tests then push it into the production environment.