and they argue that the roberts bot, jrr, doesn't follow rules. second claim is that a jurist, right, has to take what hla called the internal perspective. that is he has to understand the legal norms of his society as being his norms and 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 bot, in which, in fact, the norms are not sbeerinternal as being one's norms. they're externalized to the entity. the third argument they make is based on the philosophy of ronald dworkin. the most important point about dworkin for their purposes is that dworkin argues that what a jurist does in deciding cases is to articulate and apply and be in sympathy with the norms of the community in which the jurist is. and they argue that the john roberts bot, being a robot, cannot, in fact, be a member of the community and has not internalized the community's norms. so all of these arguments really revolve around, it seems to me, a set of assump

i was thinking robert's bot, mr. roboto roberts, the chief robot of the united states, robot versus wade. [laughter] those of you from the new york area, jnr electronics and my personal favorite, sheldon h. wilson's remote-control device. so, in any case which brings me to the fact there's something extremely timely about this paper because as we know, the supreme court decided in the case yesterday and the day before whether or not chief justice roberts is a robot the supreme court is on autopilot when it comes to campaign finance, and also the fact that recently there was a controversy in canada over the qualifications of a nominating supreme court judge that was rejected by the supreme court for being insufficiently qualified to be one of the three representatives on the court which carissima has written about and it seems those are relevant to what you want to talk about in the papers as we will see in the second. so that is the name and now what is it exactly that ian and carissima have to tell us? there are thre

in sympathy with the norms of the community in which the jurist is and they argue that the john roberts bot being a robot cannot in fact be a member of the community and is not internalized the community's norms. so all of these arguments really revolve around it seems to me a set of assumptions about robots and their relationships to communities. indeed, if you look at the first couple, the first two arguments which are based on an interpretation their argument is that to follow a rule is not to simply presented with a rule and then to have a particular internal state in your head rather to follow a rule is to be messed matched in the community and to be disciplined and tutored and to sort of live a certain kind of life and because you live a certain kind of life, because you enter into a form of life therefore you know how to follow the rules as an idea. what they want to argue with that a robot cannot enter into a form of life. it cannot participate in the community and therefore it can't really follow rules in the same way that a normal jurists can. similarly it owes something to the th