Reading: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{g}}''Of critical importance in this model is the role played by context — physical, social, and cultural — in shaping the decisions writers make as they compose a text a..."
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}''Of critical importance in this model is the role played by context — physical, social, and cultural — in shaping the decisions writers make as they compose a text and that readers make as they construct meaning from a text. For writers, context shapes — some might argue that it actually causes — the purposes for writing. Moreover, context affects the opportunities, requirements, and limitations that affect the choices writers make as they compose their documents. For readers, context shapes their attempt to construct meaning as they read.
{{g}}:''Of critical importance in this model is the role played by context — physical, social, and cultural — in shaping the decisions writers make as they compose a text and that readers make as they construct meaning from a text. For writers, context shapes — some might argue that it actually causes — the purposes for writing. Moreover, context affects the opportunities, requirements, and limitations that affect the choices writers make as they compose their documents. For readers, context shapes their attempt to construct meaning as they read.
::— ''[https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=19&guideid=3 The Role of Context in Shaping Purpose and Constructing Meaning]'', Colorado State University
::— ''[https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=19&guideid=3 The Role of Context in Shaping Purpose and Constructing Meaning]'', Colorado State University




Before going nap on the idea of artificial intelligence putting lawyers out of work, it is worth considering the basics of what what lawyers do. Namely, reading. Reading is not simply the process of ingesting a string of symbols. However, this is all any contemporary artificial intelligence can do. Even a deep neural network.
Before replacing your lawyers with [[artificial intelligence]], consider the [[lawyer]]’s basic function: ''[[reading]]''. However, this is all any contemporary artificial intelligence can do. Even a deep neural network.


If your think junior legal work can be easily replaced by a chatbot, you will be disappointed. Consider what junior legal work tends to comprise. The paradigm case is reviewing a confidentiality agreement. It is a [[tedious]] low-value job. Just when hanky-panky is on the cards, dear client presents amorous salesperson with a confi. Randy salesperson knows the rules: all legal contracts must be approved by the legal department full stop there follows an interminable 3-day back and forth while the lawyers duke your out. This costs money and dampens ardours.
Consider what “junior legal work” tends to comprise. Reading and interpretation of basic contracts: the paradigm case is the [[confidentiality agreement]]. It is a [[tedious]] low-value job. Just when sales are on the brink of a grand new conquest, the prospective client produces a confidentiality agreement. Sales is ready to go, but first thee [[legal eagle]]s must have their day. Cue a week or so of tedious, costly, back-and-forth, during which time ardours run a big risk of being dampened.


Could not a hastily-commissioned [[chatbot]] handle this?
What to do? {{t|Policy}} says we must review the {{t|contract}}. But surely, in these [[AI|artificially intelligent]] times, there is a better way. Could not a hastily-commissioned [[chatbot]] handle this?


First clue here is that not even the salesperson — a fully specified, tertiary-educated autonomous intelligent being<ref>Allegedly.</ref> — can be trusted to do this. If she could, why bother having the legal guy?  
Good luck on that soldier. First clue here is that not even the salesperson — supposedly a reflective, emotionally aware, tertiary-educated, autonomous intelligent being<ref>''[[Salesperson|Allegedly]]''.</ref> — can be trusted to review this contract. If she could, you wouldn’t need the [[legal eagle]], would you?  


Your chatbot may not have to be an excellent lawyer, therefore, but to have a job it must at least be better at reading than a salesperson.  
So there is your first hurdle: your [[chatbot]] may not need the forensic skills of Judge Learned Hand himself, therefore, but it must at least be better at reading a {{t|contract}} than a [[salesperson]].  


Bear in mind what a lawyer does when she reads a contract. What is she doing that not even a university educated salesperson can do? reading and interpretation is a dynamic process. She is bringing a rich metaphorical structure, that she has spent literally years learning and refining  — the English common law — to the textThrough this metaphorical structure she extracts meaning and consequence that is entirely unavailable to her colleague in sales. [[Magic words]] have special meanings: "[[indemnity]]". "[[Consideration]]". "[[Equitable remedy]]". Each of these concepts has its own intellectual life, and dog-eared meandering history, traceable through centuries of dusty law reports. The lawyer brings her own imperfect, idiosyncratic impression of that history to her review of the confi.
And what must that review entail? Reading is more than the mechanical ingestion and processing of a string of symbols. When a lawyer reads a contract she is doing something that even a university-educated [[salesperson]] cannot. Reading and interpretation is a dynamic process by which the reader brings her personal metaphorical superstructure — a “schema” — to a text that was composed using a more or less compatible schema. No two schemas are the same — we all have our foibles and unique experiences, and those variances in everyday life account for much of the human condition. Lawyers have their own special meta-schema — one that requires years learning and refinementThe lawyer uses this meta-schema to extract meaning and consequences that are unavailable to laypersons. Legal [[magic words]] have special meanings: [[indemnity]]”; “[[consideration]]”; “[[equitable remedy]]. Concepts like these have their own intellectual life and a dog-eared, meandering history which one can trace through centuries of dusty law reports. When she reads a contract, a lawyer brings her own imperfect<ref>And it will be imperfect: most commercial lawyers, for example, have a very dim grip on the concept of an [[indemnity]] for example.?</ref>, idiosyncratic impression of that history to her review.


A neutral network can have none of this. Not can it acquire any of it through ingestion of sample texts.
A [[neutral network]] can have none of this. Nor can it acquire any of it through ingestion of sample texts.

Revision as of 13:11, 3 November 2019

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.
Of critical importance in this model is the role played by context — physical, social, and cultural — in shaping the decisions writers make as they compose a text and that readers make as they construct meaning from a text. For writers, context shapes — some might argue that it actually causes — the purposes for writing. Moreover, context affects the opportunities, requirements, and limitations that affect the choices writers make as they compose their documents. For readers, context shapes their attempt to construct meaning as they read.
The Role of Context in Shaping Purpose and Constructing Meaning, Colorado State University


Before replacing your lawyers with artificial intelligence, consider the lawyer’s basic function: reading. However, this is all any contemporary artificial intelligence can do. Even a deep neural network.

Consider what “junior legal work” tends to comprise. Reading and interpretation of basic contracts: the paradigm case is the confidentiality agreement. It is a tedious low-value job. Just when sales are on the brink of a grand new conquest, the prospective client produces a confidentiality agreement. Sales is ready to go, but first thee legal eagles must have their day. Cue a week or so of tedious, costly, back-and-forth, during which time ardours run a big risk of being dampened.

What to do? Policy says we must review the contract. But surely, in these artificially intelligent times, there is a better way. Could not a hastily-commissioned chatbot handle this?

Good luck on that soldier. First clue here is that not even the salesperson — supposedly a reflective, emotionally aware, tertiary-educated, autonomous intelligent being[1] — can be trusted to review this contract. If she could, you wouldn’t need the legal eagle, would you?

So there is your first hurdle: your chatbot may not need the forensic skills of Judge Learned Hand himself, therefore, but it must at least be better at reading a contract than a salesperson.

And what must that review entail? Reading is more than the mechanical ingestion and processing of a string of symbols. When a lawyer reads a contract she is doing something that even a university-educated salesperson cannot. Reading and interpretation is a dynamic process by which the reader brings her personal metaphorical superstructure — a “schema” — to a text that was composed using a more or less compatible schema. No two schemas are the same — we all have our foibles and unique experiences, and those variances in everyday life account for much of the human condition. Lawyers have their own special meta-schema — one that requires years learning and refinement. The lawyer uses this meta-schema to extract meaning and consequences that are unavailable to laypersons. Legal magic words have special meanings: “indemnity”; “consideration”; “equitable remedy”. Concepts like these have their own intellectual life and a dog-eared, meandering history which one can trace through centuries of dusty law reports. When she reads a contract, a lawyer brings her own imperfect[2], idiosyncratic impression of that history to her review.

A neutral network can have none of this. Nor can it acquire any of it through ingestion of sample texts.

  1. Allegedly.
  2. And it will be imperfect: most commercial lawyers, for example, have a very dim grip on the concept of an indemnity for example.?