82,891
edits
Contract analysis: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===[[Contract review tool]]s=== | ===[[Contract review tool]]s=== | ||
More potentially transformative are emerging “[[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]]” [[contract review tool]]s. These promise to take a ''foreign'' draft, received from a counterparty, and analyse it against a pre-defined [[playbook]], together with other examples which the machine has already learned from, mark it up, and return it for completion of the negotiation. This is much harder than reviewing your own standard terms. Legal text from random strangers can, and often does, say '' | More ''potentially'' transformative are emerging “[[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]]” [[contract review tool]]s. These promise to take a ''foreign'' draft, received from a counterparty, and analyse it against a pre-defined [[playbook]], together with other examples which the machine has already learned from, mark it up, and return it for completion of the negotiation. | ||
This is a much harder stunt than reviewing your own standard terms. Legal text from random strangers can, and often does, say ''anything'', and is liable to be rendered in the sort of inventively tumid syntax that only a trained professional could confect. | |||
'Semantically'', human languages are fundamentally ambiguous. Machines do not ''understand'' them. That's not how the [[AI]] works. “[[Natural language processing]]” means the ''mechanical'' processing of natural language, not the ''natural'' processing of language. It is a dumb, statistical, pattern-recognising process. | |||
So however accurate a mark-up may become, there will always be a need for a human to read and approve it. A common subject for these contract review tools is [[confidentiality agreement]]s, being as they are (a) low risk; (b) ''substantially'' standard: all confis say the same basic things; and (c) ''formally'' variable: there is no limit to the profligacy with which legal eagles can waste qwords in articulate these basic commercial requirements apable of infinite variation in their articulation | |||
But even here the technology disappoints and, in predictable ways, makes an existing problem even worse than it otherwise might be. Institutions are decommissioning review systems the same way they are repatriating once offshored operations functions.<ref>Isn’t it funny how you never hear about ''cancelled'' offshore operations?</ref> It is worth investigating why. | But even here the technology disappoints and, in predictable ways, makes an existing problem even worse than it otherwise might be. Institutions are decommissioning review systems the same way they are repatriating once offshored operations functions.<ref>Isn’t it funny how you never hear about ''cancelled'' offshore operations?</ref> It is worth investigating why. | ||