82,964
edits
Template:M intro technology Better call ChatGPT: Difference between revisions
Template:M intro technology Better call ChatGPT (view source)
Revision as of 13:16, 8 February 2024
, 8 Februaryno edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
A: You only have to punch information into an [[LLM]] once.}} | A: You only have to punch information into an [[LLM]] once.}} | ||
This, perhaps, accounts for that mysterious variance among experienced lawyers. Contract review, end of the day, is an art, not a science. Sometimes you take a point, sometimes you don’t. Some | This, perhaps, accounts for that mysterious variance among experienced lawyers. [[Contract review]], end of the day, is an art, not a science. Much of a contract is filler better satsficing than optimising much less perfecting. Sometimes you take a point, sometimes you don’t. Some like the comfort of redundant boilerplate, others cannot abide it. Harbouring different traumas and scars from their life experience, different individuals — and institutions — are fearful about different things. | ||
A busy-body [[Large language model|LLM]] that | Does it ''matter'' that your contract has a [[counterparts]] clause? Does it matter that it ''doesn’t''? | ||
A busy-body [[Large language model|LLM]] that catches every blemish and cannot take a view as often creates a problem as a solution. This kind of literalness rubs off, or is beaten out of, junior lawyers as they develop. But mechanical ducks like LLMs have an insatiable thirst for it. | |||
For what we are fighting here is not bad lawyering, nor bad machines nor bad intentions but ''bad process design''. Supporting it with machinery will make things worse. This is the lesson of the sorcerer’s apprentice. | For what we are fighting here is not bad lawyering, nor bad machines nor bad intentions but ''bad process design''. Supporting it with machinery will make things worse. This is the lesson of the sorcerer’s apprentice. | ||
| Line 43: | Line 45: | ||
====The oblique purposes of formal contracts==== | ====The oblique purposes of formal contracts==== | ||
{{Drop|T}}here is one peculiarity that a literal approach to contract review cannot address, but we should mention: sometimes a contract’s true significance is tangential to its content. Sometimes, the detail is not the point.<ref>This is, broadly, true of all contracts from execution until formal enforcement. The overwhelming majority of contracts are never formally enforced.</ref> | |||
Sometimes the ''act'' of finely thrashing the details out frustrates the true purpose of the contract, which is to fulfil a sociological function. As a commitment signal or competence signal. | |||
A basic example: European financial services regulations require institutions to have written contracts with their customers, as an end in itself. They are less prescriptive about what they should say | |||
As a mating ritual, of sorts: a performative ululation of customary cultural verities meant signal that yes, we care about the same things you do, are of the right stuff, the same mind and our ad idems are capable of consensus. | As a mating ritual, of sorts: a performative ululation of customary cultural verities meant signal that yes, we care about the same things you do, are of the right stuff, the same mind and our ad idems are capable of consensus. | ||