Looking back at half a century of horrendous bug-ridden code, and you still say this?

I mean, people have tried! Ethereum created a system of contracts implemented as a programming language. Know what it led to? People losing huge amounts of their money after someone found a bug in the contract and exploited it. And after that, the money was gone. The hacker had followed the contract as written, and the money was theirs now.

Yup. And it led into split of Ethereum into two chains, one followed by people who believed that code should be law, and other who believed the code should be law only when it works in their favour.

Which can be considered a concession of failure for the idea of "law-as-code", because apparently when the going gets tough, that concept needs to fall back to good old "law-by-humans" in order to continue being relevant and accepted by people. As a system that should not ever be in need of any fallback, that spells fundamental defeat.

We create these systems to be of use to humans. When they aren't of use to humans, that's a bug, and is viewed as something to fix, so we convene humans to provide a fix, whether for a specific case or to the system overall.

Ultimately, the only ways that situation doesn't play out is if the system is designed perfectly not just for current use but all future uses, or Humans are removed entirely from the equation. Since the former is impossible, and the latter means the system is either irrelevant or we're all dead and gone, we might as well accept Human intervention as inevitable.

It really shouldn't. It will never be able to accomodate every possible case. There is a reason why stories about drones going around and enforcing the law like a programming language is considered a dystopic setting.

This is exactly the same as legalizing every loophole and abuse of wording.

Above all, if the law would be code, who would decide the input? Unless every conversation and record is already in the Law-Bots huge power is given to the "formatting" of the evidences.