Writing for an audience of one

"To enhance citizen access to Government information and services by establishing that Government documents issued to the public must be written clearly, and for other purposes." (P.L. 111-274)

Just over thirteen years ago, the Plain Writing Act of 2010 was enacted by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. The struggle remains for legislative bodies and regulatory agencies alike to write laws and regulations in plain language while also attempting to adapt to the evolution of language, reconcile legal jargon, simplify complex concepts, abiding by established historical concepts while maintaining the conventions of formality and precision.

Federal and state governments have attempted to enact their versions of plain writing throughout their laws and regulations in the hope that plain language can improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal and State agencies to the public by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.

Section 38.2-3735 F of the Code of Virginia even requires that the "(State Corporation) Commission shall not approve any form unless the policy or certificate is written in nontechnical, readily understandable language, using words of common everyday usage. A form shall be deemed acceptable under this section if the insurer certifies that the form achieves a Flesch Readability Score of forty or more, using the Flesch Readability Formula as set forth in Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Readable Writing (1949, as revised 1974), and certifies compliance with the guidelines set forth in this section."

Hypothetical v Theoretical

Black's Law Dictionary defines "hypothetical" as a proposition or statement that is presumed true for the sake of logical analysis or debate." (Black's, 2009). In contrast, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "theoretical" as meaning "designating that part of a subject or discipline that is concerned with conceptual aspects and development of theories relating to the subject or discipline,…" (Oxford, 2000). Laws written in the hypothetical context are often seen as more clearly understood by the public rather than laws and regulations written in a more theoretical context. However, a hypothetical context results in a more rigid application and does not allow for nuance in its day-to-day use.

Plain writing, what is it good for…

On the website https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/wordiness/, the first example provides the example of "how using plain language can help you say what you mean without extra word clutter." (PLAIN, 2024)

At 36 words, the first sentence is more extended than the second sentence at 23 words:

• "If the location of the land is in a state other than the state in which the tribe's reservation is located, the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits from the acquisition will be subject to greater scrutiny."
• "If the land is in a different State than the tribe's reservation, we will scrutinize the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits more thoroughly."

However, it is essential to ask: Does the second sentence improve the effectiveness and accountability of the agency to the public? Does the second sentence provide more transparent communication so the public can now use and understand the regulation?

While the second sentence may appear more precise and concise, appearances can be deceiving.

Langue and the Law at a Crossroad

The concerted efforts of the past several decades to clean up the laws and regulations so the public can understand and use them more readily are at the end of the line.

There is a new reader of the law that will need to be considered. This new reader and its concerns have the potential to blackout the needs and wants of the lawyers and the public. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) is now looking over our collective shoulders. While specific A.I. platforms can provide an interpretation of what is stated in a particular law or regulation, A.I. needs help to grasp laws and regulations written to address the theoretical. Specific A.I. platforms tend to hallucinate and make up "missing facts" when asked to interpret a theoretical requirement. These same A.I. platforms tend to be more reliable when asked to address a law or regulation that is written as hypothetical.

Looking back to the example sentences. While the first sentence was longer than the second, it was written in a way that made the regulation more formal and provided more detail. The first sentence outlined a principle that would be applied in evaluating the benefits of land acquisition by a tribe. To me, the phrasing of this sentence can be read as more theoretical.

The second sentence simplified the regulation into a more direct statement by outlining a specific action ("we will scrutinize…") that will happen under certain specific conditions. To me, the phrasing of this second sentence can be read as more hypothetical.

From the Plain Writing Act of 2010 to the Artificial Intelligence Compatible Writing Act of 20??

I predict that we will witness a seismic shift in how laws and regulations are written. When the first Federal or State agency moves from writing their regulations from the stylistic guidelines of "plain language" to developing regulations that can be readily interpreted, without hallucination, by an artificial intelligence platform, there will be little hope for turning back. Once we reach that point, society as a whole will depart from the theoretical framework, which has been in development since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

When laws and regulations are written to be interpreted and applied by A.I., an audience one, we will find that laws and regulations will read remarkably differently than the laws and regulations that are written today in the hopes of improving upon the effectiveness and accountability of Federal and State agencies to the public by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.

?

Plain Language Action and Information Network. (2024). Wordiness Made Spare. Retrieved from https://www.plainlanguage.gov

Garner, B. A., & Black, H. C. (2009).?Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). West/Thomson Reuters.

Oxford English dictionary. (2000). Oxford University Press.