Lawmaking Can't Be Left To AI

In 2014, a group of truck drivers in Maine secured a $5 million settlement—not over harsh working conditions or wage theft, but due to the absence of an Oxford comma in the American state's overtime law.

- ADITYA SINHA

In 2014, a group of truck drivers in Maine secured a $5 million settlement—not over harsh working conditions or wage theft, but due to the absence of an Oxford comma in the American state's overtime law. The statute listed exempt activities as "packing for shipment or distribution," and the lack of a comma before "or" triggered a dispute. Was distribution a separate exempt activity, or was only the act of packing (for shipment or distribution) exempt? The ambiguity was sufficient for the court to side with the drivers, highlighting how even minute syntactic choices in legislative drafting can carry substantial consequences.

The case shows how language structures shape legal meaning, especially under textualist or purposivist readings. In increasingly complex legal systems, such linguistic fragilities expose the need for greater precision in drafting.

As the world changes faster than parliaments can respond, it's easy to see why governments are starting to explore whether artificial intelligence can help. Some are already moving beyond using it to summarize bills or streamline services, towards something far more ambitious. The UAE is taking the boldest step yet, aiming to make AI a co-legislator of sorts. It has launched an AI-driven regulation system that will not only draft and review laws, but also predict when they need to change, using a vast database of legal and public sector data. Officials hope this will make lawmaking up to 70 percent faster. Unlike many democracies, the UAE's political structure lets it experiment at speed, which is why it's becoming a test-bed for such innovation.