82,927
edits
Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
*Are there more words? My oath there are.<ref>Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contract}}s ''exploded'' after 1990.</ref> | *Are there more words? My oath there are.<ref>Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contract}}s ''exploded'' after 1990.</ref> | ||
The more [[technology]] we have thrown at “[[the legal problem]]”, the longer and crappier our [[contract]]s have become. A curious fellow might pause to wonder ''why''. Surprisingly few have.<ref>Not even those professionally motivated to do so: futurologists of the law have forged whole academic careers by predicting a [[The Singularity is Near - Book Review|legal dystopia]] which seems, in thirty years, only sclerotically to have got any nearer. [[A World Without Work: Technology, Automation, and How We Should Respond - Book Review|A world without work]]? Fat chance. </ref> Why | The more [[technology]] we have thrown at “[[the legal problem]]”, the longer and crappier our [[contract]]s have become. A curious fellow might pause to wonder ''why''. Surprisingly few have.<ref>Not even those professionally motivated to do so: futurologists of the law have forged whole academic careers by predicting a [[The Singularity is Near - Book Review|legal dystopia]] which seems, in thirty years, only sclerotically to have got any nearer. [[A World Without Work: Technology, Automation, and How We Should Respond - Book Review|A world without work]]? Fat chance.</ref> | ||
Why isn’t technology helping? | |||
Let me hazard a guess. To be sure, Andy has given; it isn’t Bill that has taken away.<ref>Let me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law Google that cultural reference for you].</ref> So who is it? ''All of us''. You and me, readers: we [[Mediocre lawyer|nit-picky, care-worn, pedantic attorneys]]. It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. We [[lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by the time we take and the [[value]] we add. We “add value” in the shape of ''words''. We put them in and we take them out. We are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of our analysis. | Let me hazard a guess. To be sure, Andy has given; it isn’t Bill that has taken away.<ref>Let me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law Google that cultural reference for you].</ref> So who is it? ''All of us''. You and me, readers: we [[Mediocre lawyer|nit-picky, care-worn, pedantic attorneys]]. It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. We [[lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by the time we take and the [[value]] we add. We “add value” in the shape of ''words''. We put them in and we take them out. We are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of our analysis. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 50: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
[[Innovation]] | *[[Boilerplate]] | ||
*[[ClauseHub]] | |||
*[[Innovation]] | |||
*[[Natural language processing]] | *[[Natural language processing]] | ||
*[[Reg tech]] | *[[Reg tech]] | ||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||