...for core concepts like murder, the rules are well defined and fairly unambiguous, whereas more trivial things (in terms of risk to humans) like tax laws, parking laws are the bits that have a lot of complexity to them.
I suspect there’s a lot of hidden complexity here. The malice requirement for murder, for example, strikes me as the sort of thing that would be hard to get an algorithm to recognize; similar problems might arise in mapping out the boundary between premeditated and non-premeditated murder (in jurisdictions where it’s significant), figuring out culpability in cases of murder by indirect means, determining whether a self-defense claim is justified, etc.
Tax law (e.g.) has more surface complexity, but it also looks more mechanistic to me. I don’t think this has to do with risk so much as with its distance from domains we’re cognitively optimized for.
I suspect there’s a lot of hidden complexity here. The malice requirement for murder, for example, strikes me as the sort of thing that would be hard to get an algorithm to recognize; similar problems might arise in mapping out the boundary between premeditated and non-premeditated murder (in jurisdictions where it’s significant), figuring out culpability in cases of murder by indirect means, determining whether a self-defense claim is justified, etc.
Tax law (e.g.) has more surface complexity, but it also looks more mechanistic to me. I don’t think this has to do with risk so much as with its distance from domains we’re cognitively optimized for.