81,875
edits
Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Also, the technology employed by social media platforms like [[LinkedIn]] to save you the bother of composing your own unctuous endorsements of people you once met at a [[business day convention]] and who have just posted about the wild old time they've had at a panel discussion on the operational challenges of regulatory reporting under the [[securities financing transactions regulation]]. | Also, the technology employed by social media platforms like [[LinkedIn]] to save you the bother of composing your own unctuous endorsements of people you once met at a [[business day convention]] and who have just posted about the wild old time they've had at a panel discussion on the operational challenges of regulatory reporting under the [[securities financing transactions regulation]]. | ||
=== | ===The practical reason your jobs are safe=== | ||
Is that, for all the wishful thinking ([[blockchain]]! [[chatbot|chatbots]]!) the “[[artificial intelligence]]” behind reg-tech at the moment just ''isn't very good''. Oh, they'll talk a great game about “natural language parsing” and “tokenised [[distributed ledger technology]]” and so on, but bear in mind that what is going on behind the hood is little more than a sophisticated visual basic macro. A lot of the magic of the world-wide web really isn’t, technologically, that sophisticated. Information retrieval is really a no more than devising a basic metadata schema and hey — even muggins like the [[Jolly Contrarian]] can do that (how do you think this wiki works?). Actually parsing natural language and doing that contextual, experiential thing of knowing that, ''yadayadayda [[boilerplate]] but '''whoa''' hold on, tiger we’re not having '''that''''' isn’t the kind of thing a startup with a .php manual and a couple of web developers can develop on the fly. So expect [[proof of concept|proofs of concept]] that work ok on a pre-configured [[confidentiality agreement]] in the demo, but will be practically useless on the general weft and warp of the legal agreements you actually encounter in real life — as prolix, unnecessary and randomly drafted as they are. | |||
The thing is, there is some genuinely staggering AI out there, but it ain’t in regtech — it is in the music industry. The AI drummer on Apple’s Logic Pro. That’s amazing, and that really is putting folks out of work. Likewise Izotope’s mastering plugins. | |||
If only Izotope realised how much money there was in regtech, they wouldn't be faffing around with hobbyist home recording types like yours truly. | |||
===The actual reason your jobs are safe=== | |||
More particularly, why [[artificial intelligence]] won’t be sounding the death knell to the [[Legal eagle|legal profession]] any time soon. Because Computer language isn’t nearly as rich as human language. It doesn't have any tenses, for one thing. In this spurious fellow’s opinion tenses, narratising as they do a spatio-temporal continuity of existence that we have known since the time of [[David Hume]] cannot be deduced or otherwise justified on logical grounds, is the special sauce of consciousness, self-awareness, and therefore intelligence. If you don’t have a conception of your self as a unitary, thinking thing, though the past, at present and into the future, then you have no need to plan for the future or learn lessons from the past. You can’t narratise. | More particularly, why [[artificial intelligence]] won’t be sounding the death knell to the [[Legal eagle|legal profession]] any time soon. Because Computer language isn’t nearly as rich as human language. It doesn't have any tenses, for one thing. In this spurious fellow’s opinion tenses, narratising as they do a spatio-temporal continuity of existence that we have known since the time of [[David Hume]] cannot be deduced or otherwise justified on logical grounds, is the special sauce of consciousness, self-awareness, and therefore intelligence. If you don’t have a conception of your self as a unitary, thinking thing, though the past, at present and into the future, then you have no need to plan for the future or learn lessons from the past. You can’t narratise. | ||
Machine language deals with past (and future) events without | Machine language deals with past (and future) events without using tenses. All code is rendered in the present tense: Instead of saying: | ||
:''The computer’s configuration on May 1, 2012 '''''was''''' XYZ''<br> | :''The computer’s configuration on May 1, 2012 '''''was''''' XYZ''<br> | ||
Machine language will typically say: | Machine language will typically say: | ||
| Line 26: | Line 34: | ||
But you can split these into two categories: those which are the product of obvious (however impressive) computational feats - like Chess, Go, Self-driving cars, and those that are the product of statistical analysis, so are rendered as matters of probability (like Google translate). | But you can split these into two categories: those which are the product of obvious (however impressive) computational feats - like Chess, Go, Self-driving cars, and those that are the product of statistical analysis, so are rendered as matters of probability (like Google translate). | ||
If their continued existence depended on its Chess-playing we might commend our souls to the hands of a computer (well - I would). It won’t be long before we do a similar thing by getting into an AI-controlled self-driving car - we give ourselves absolutely over to the machine and let it make decisions which, if wrong, may kill us. But its range of actions are limited and the possible outcomes it must follow are obviously | If their continued existence depended on its Chess-playing we might commend our souls to the hands of a computer (well - I would). It won’t be long before we do a similar thing by getting into an AI-controlled self-driving car - we give ourselves absolutely over to the machine and let it make decisions which, if wrong, may kill us. But its range of actions are limited and the possible outcomes it must follow are obviously circumscribed - a single slim volume can comprehensively describe the rules with which it must comply (the Highway Code). Outside machine failure, the main risk we run is presented not by non-machines (folks like you and me) behaving outside the norms the machine has been programmed to expect. I think we'd be less inclined to trust a translation. | ||
*there is an inherent ambiguity in language (which legal drafting is designed to minimize, but which it can’t eliminated. | *there is an inherent ambiguity in language (which legal drafting is designed to minimize, but which it can’t eliminated. | ||