82,853
edits
Natural language processing: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|tech|}}One of the [[Holy Grails of reg tech]] is [[natural language processing]]: some varieties of the same thing: a machine that reads contracts for you. | {{a|tech|}}One of the [[Holy Grails of reg tech]] is [[natural language processing]]: some varieties of the same thing: a machine that reads contracts for you. This could come in the following articulations: | ||
*'''Data extraction''': Crawling over your portfolio of 40,000 {{isdama}}s<ref>You know, the ones printed on faded waxy fax paper and languishing in filing cabinets around the trading floor; the ones scanned into a 57 MB tiff file along with three amendments, forty pages of specimen signatures, a power of attorney, hand-annotated emails from Credit and the five key pages of the Schedule missing; the ones that are misfiled as Swiss [[rahmenrvertrag]]s; the ones that are just not there at all.</ref> to extract the 60 key [[trading]] and [[credit]] terms out of them that the firm neglected to collect over the last 25 years while it was signing them up; | *'''Data extraction''': Crawling over your portfolio of 40,000 {{isdama}}s<ref>You know, the ones printed on faded waxy fax paper and languishing in filing cabinets around the trading floor; the ones scanned into a 57 MB tiff file along with three amendments, forty pages of specimen signatures, a power of attorney, hand-annotated emails from Credit and the five key pages of the Schedule missing; the ones that are misfiled as Swiss [[rahmenrvertrag]]s; the ones that are just not there at all.</ref> to extract the 60 key [[trading]] and [[credit]] terms out of them that the firm neglected to collect over the last 25 years while it was signing them up; | ||
*'''[[Legal agreement review]]''': algorithmically scanning standard-form {{t|contracts}}<ref>To date, only one any one has successfully managed is the one that no-one really cares about: the [[confidentiality agreement]]</ref> to identify key terms and risk provisions and save human lawyers from that tedious chore; | *'''[[Legal agreement review]]''': algorithmically scanning standard-form {{t|contracts}}<ref>To date, only one any one has successfully managed is the one that no-one really cares about: the [[confidentiality agreement]]</ref> to identify key terms and risk provisions and save human lawyers from that tedious chore; | ||
*'''[[Chat bots]]''': An online, chat buddy to whom [[Sales]] can basic legal questions, thereby saving [[Sales]] the aggravation of having to talk to the [[legal eagles]], and [[legal]] the utter [[tedium]] of having to answer the exact same question to the exact [[Sales]] person three or four times daily. | *'''[[Chat bots]]''': An online, chat buddy to whom [[Sales]] can basic legal questions, thereby saving [[Sales]] the aggravation of having to talk to the [[legal eagles]], and [[legal]] the utter [[tedium]] of having to answer the exact same question to the exact [[Sales]] person three or four times daily. | ||
Now reading any text involves judgment, interpretation and negotiation of ambiguity — and bringing to the text the reader’s own understanding of the legal background — while legal language is crafted to avoid ambiguity — {{maxim|there are no metaphors in a trust deed}} — there are still infinite ways of expressing the same idea, and if there is one part of the imagination a lawyer loves to stretch, it is inventing burlesque ways of saying simple things. Understand a well-formed English sentence is not just a matter of applying basic rules of language. It is a dynamic process. | |||
{{ref}} | |||