ABSTRACT

A rule-based expert system must accept the framing of issues provided by its designer. Like artificial intelligence (AI) systems, human legal actors are called upon to implement indeterminate legal rules. Rules may be thought of as theory-maps, approximations to the law that receive content only through interpretation. In general, there are many possible metaphors of law and legal rules. As metaphors, they necessarily emphasize some aspects of law and legal rules and de-emphasize or mask others. In legal argument and in judicial opinions, discussion of the choice of available rules and of the rules’ scope of applicability is limited to a fairly narrow range. To the extent that rules can be made clear, all other things being equal, they probably should be. Like AI systems, human legal actors are called upon to implement indeterminate legal rules. Like AI systems, human actors are called upon to make categorizations and judgments and are limited in their ability to explain those judgments.