Josh Fairfield (51:07): If we do that, if we abandon efforts to improve and develop the way we talk about it and our social institutions, and if we ignore our obvious ability to do so in other areas. We are developing our social institutions incredibly rapidly in many other areas of justice. And yet, here, technology somehow seems to have a status in terms of the response of institutions and law in general. And so I think it`s about paying a lot less attention to laws and paying a lot more attention to how language develops. And I think we`re already starting to do that. So if you want to know what`s bothering Facebook, what`s bothering Facebook, it`s not section five of the FTC Act. What worries Facebook is when there`s this growing public backlash against WhatsApp`s terms of service and when people make a massive shift to the signal. Jeremiah (14:20):D It means something about the kind of people who then have to practice as a lawyer. Because what you`re describing when we start saying that hacking the pacemaker to kill someone is murdered just like stabbing someone. So maybe it`s a little easier to describe for the average person, but if you get into more and more abstract ideas, I mean, to go very far, simulated brains running on computer hardware, I don`t know what. We are entering philosophical territory where it almost feels like it is the person who has to come up with ideas, which is effectively a legal guide.

The equivalent of a guide: “Hey, this is where the law is going in the future. Here are the basic principles we apply here. Do we need to look at people who are a little more philosophical and who can better convey this philosophy? Is this one of the skills needed for the lawyers of tomorrow? Josh Fairfield (28:10): All this metanarrative is there. I think every group definitely has its own shell that needs to be broken. And then the other thing to do is to import language from other places. To look for that. Listening very carefully to people using the same words you use is . And you walk on the [00:28:33] line of [Toya] of the princess` bride. You use this word over and over again, I don`t think it means what you think it means. When you have that feeling, you keep using that word, I don`t think it means what you think it means. It is not a point of separation where technologists and lawyers can no longer do business with each other.

No, this is the place where progress becomes possible, where you have now achieved, here we do not get along. We must create conditions for transition. Law and technology are always opposites. Technology seems to be advancing at a pace that the law simply cannot keep up. It is estimated that the law is at least five years behind the development of a technology. This estimate probably leads and should worry most people. While new technologies make life easier in many ways, there are many challenges in the legal community to keep pace. There are several possible reasons for this reality, one of which is that it is difficult and often impossible for lawyers and lawmakers to predict new technologies before they appear. Thus, the law is obliged to catch up retrospectively. Cases are decided and laws are passed at a rapid pace, and there is no way of knowing how long they will survive. For example, a definition of how the Internet works, only in 2007 in the case of Perfect 20 v. Google is already completely outdated.

Josh Fairfield (15:50): Let`s say they have tools, A, B, C and D. If you are a team of the best people in the field, they all have the same tools, A, B, C and D. And you`re often much better off if you add people with tools like E, F, G, H, I, and J. Other tools that can come from a different direction. Of course. I think both philosophy and the book contain a certain philosophy of science and try to say that the problem that science has right now is that it doesn`t look at why we`re doing science, and it`s not looking for an answer to why we`re doing technology. It just depends on how we exploit the technology. So I think it`s a skill that needs to be added, but I`m going to expand that pile. Legal experts said it was difficult for the law to keep pace with new technologies. “They have a lively debate about a million different topics on the internet every day,” he said. “But on the other hand, is it a license to damage people`s reputations by knowing lies?” Josh Fairfield (04:46): Well, I think the main limitation is again our misconceptions about what the law is. So, if we consider the law as a final product.

Here`s a great way to put it. People often think that the law cannot keep up with technology because it points to outdated laws that no longer adequately regulate human behavior.