I can see some lawyers making pranks by setting up the micro-directives so that when you follow them, you&#x27;ll end up in a loop...<p>Seriously though, an important thing about the law is the ability to (more-less) reason about it. That I can predict what rules may apply to my future situation and use that to adjust my behavior proactively. With the description from the abstract it&#x27;ll be impossible by design - micro-directives tailored to specific situations will be too specific and too minutiae-dependent to predict beforehand.<p>---<p>Skimming the paper, I realize the &#x27;micro-directives&#x27; are basically cases of computers making decisions. They are not laws, they&#x27;re machine outputs that tell humans what to do (operate or don&#x27;t, drive forward or stop, etc.). So on one hand, it&#x27;s not as scary as it sounds. On the other, does it make sense to view it from this angle? Why not just talk about what computers are better at deciding than us?