82,909
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. ''That is not their nature''. It is ''contrary'' to their nature. ''That is not what lawyers will use technology for.'' Lawyers will use technology to find ''new'' complexities. To eliminate ''further'' risks. To descend closer to the [[fractal]] shore of [[risk]] that it is their sacred quest to police. | ''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. ''That is not their nature''. It is ''contrary'' to their nature. ''That is not what lawyers will use technology for.'' Lawyers will use technology to find ''new'' complexities. To eliminate ''further'' risks. To descend closer to the [[fractal]] shore of [[risk]] that it is their sacred quest to police. | ||
If your principle goal is to simplify, technology will help | If your principle goal is to simplify, [[technology]] will help. But if your goal is livelihood preservation through confusion, obfuscation and distraction, [[technology]] is your ''weapon''. Thus has it ''brilliantly'' enabled lawyers to showcase the sophistication and complexity of their syntax. In a nutshell: We use [[technology]] to ''indulge'' ourselves.<ref>There is a serious point here for people (like me) who argue that technology implementations should be driven as far as possible by users at the coalface. And that is to bear in mind that the interests of users at the coalface are not necessarily aligned with those of the organisation for which they are working.</ref> | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
[[Innovation]] | |||
*[[Natural language processing]] | *[[Natural language processing]] | ||
*[[Reg tech]] | *[[Reg tech]] | ||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |