82,891
edits
Reg tech: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
*'''Empower the [[user]]''': [[AI]] should function as a para-legal: It should respond to the [[lawyer]]’s simple instructions: “do this/don’t do that/care about this/don’t care about that” and the application should go away and do it. This makes the lawyer more valuable and incentivises her to use the AI: the really dull stuff will just get done automatically, and the next layer — points that are important to spot, but trivial to articulate — the lawyer can quickly spot these (the valuable part) and hand them off to the machine for articulation (the trivial part). | *'''Empower the [[user]]''': [[AI]] should function as a para-legal: It should respond to the [[lawyer]]’s simple instructions: “do this/don’t do that/care about this/don’t care about that” and the application should go away and do it. This makes the lawyer more valuable and incentivises her to use the AI: the really dull stuff will just get done automatically, and the next layer — points that are important to spot, but trivial to articulate — the lawyer can quickly spot these (the valuable part) and hand them off to the machine for articulation (the trivial part). | ||
===What reg tech often ''does'' do=== | ===What reg tech often ''does'' do=== | ||
Typically, [[reg tech]] tools to invert these priorities: | |||
*'''Risk reduction''': Unless your [[natural language processing]] is pretty special<ref>It won’t be.</ref>, machines cannot pick up all syntactical, legal nuance. reading legal text involves judgment, interpretation and negotiation of ambiguity. Machines can’t do this. So the machine should be a first-line triage, not a last line: in other words “whatever else you pick up, consider the following”. If the lawyer assumes the machine has read everything other than what it highlights (“I’ve read the whole document and I have found this...” she puts her faith in the interpretative judgment of the machine. Good luck. Risk reduction thus won’t significantly reduce lawyer time (if it does, consider whether you are really risk reducing). It is an ''overlay'' to lawyer time: the lawyer will need to review the whole contract those things beyond the scope of the approved algorithm. | |||
*'''Waste reduction''': Well-targeted AI can take care of simple drafting work on the simple points it does pick up. This would require some skill in natural language parsing but should not be beyond the wit of decent AI. The application would do the “eighty” while the lawyer does the “twenty”. Typically, reg tech applications get this back to front, purporting to do the big picture stuff (there’s an [[indemnity]]!) and leaving the lawyer to sweat the details in terms of drafting. It would be better for the lawyer to read the draft cold and go “fix the indemnity, change the term to 2 years, restrict disclosure to persons with a need to know, remove the requirement to notify for regulatory disclosures and take out the non-solicitation clause”. | |||
*'''Empower''': Getting this backward will ''dis''empower the lawyer: This is the machine purporting to spot the big issues and assigning the lawyer to do the manual process. This reduces the lawyer to being a sort of grammarian. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Algorithm]], [[heuristic]] and [[algorithm vs. heuristic]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||