now what is it exactly that dn and carissima have to tell us? there are three reasons why chief justice roberts is not qualified or fits. qualified as a legal question. fit is a more philosophical question, to be the chief justice of the united states. here are the three basic ideas. the first is that they argue that a jurist, a real jurist who is qualified have to be able to know how to follow the rules. and they argue that the robots, the roberts bought doesn't follow rules. he merely reacts to them or predicts the behavior of others and behaves accordingly. the second claim is that a jurist, right, has to take what is called the internal perspective. that is he has to understand the legal norms of the society as being his norms as applying to him and as basically internalizing them. that's the whole idea. the external perspective they argue is the perspective that they associate with jrr the roberts bought in which infect the norms are not internalized. they are simply external to the entity. and it's related to the first claim. the third arg

this is a wonderful paper by ian and a carissima. i will set up the premise that at one point, john roberts, chief justice john roberts is ambushed and they bring him to the hospital and they discover all along he's been a robot. hypothetical is important because it's related to the argument we are going to make later, which is that he was created sometime in the mid-70s and was the latest in technology and somehow they got him into harvard law school where the rest of his career unfolded naturally just the way that we know it to have. he did very well at the harvard law school. he was on the law review and clerked for chief rehnquist and got married to a woman and they adopted two kids and he became a very successful washington litigator, one of the finest oral advocates before the supreme court and then he was nominated to the first of the associate justice and then later the chief justice that he became the chief justice and he basically wrote all of those wonderful opinions. so that's the story. everything is the same and that is

but yes, this is reiterating trenches point, but hercules -- carissima sport. searches jumped out at us because it's the closest thing you get to like this is hercules is not a robot, but it shares a lot of the same features that we could imagine of the robot. so that was one of the reasons why dworkin found its place for sure. in terms of, just one more point sent carissima brought it up about cast sunstein. for us what we hope was part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people are commenting in the field and sunstein as a good example of that have been so focused on the question of functional capacity. and the debate so far is always a question of will we ever get there, like at the end of yesterday's panel the question was how far or close are we to those kinds of things that it's a useful christian to think about whether a person is ever going to be on the table. but won't want to do in this paper was not sort of say that the discussion and on discussion because the robots aren't there yet. that wasn't our central interest in sort of ta

in terms of, just one more point since carissima brought it up about cast some sting. for us what we hope with part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people who are commenting in the field and some sting as a good example of that have been so focused on the question of functional capacity. and the debate so far is always a question of will we ever get there, like at the end of yesterday's panel the question was, you know, how far or close are we to those kind of things that is a useful question to think about whether personhood is ever going to be on the table. but what we wanted to do in this paper was not sort of say that the discussion is a non-discussion because the robots aren't there yet. that wasn't our central interest in sort of talking about where are we at. we wanted to assume let's say we get there and then really sort of ask doesn't mean it's a slamdunk in the way that turing seems to suggest it is, and we say no. >> can i say something? i quite friendly don't care whether you use hart-fuller-dworkin or anyone. when i read your paper,