83,013
edits
Reg tech: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*'''[[Yngwie Malmsteen paradox|Allows infinite flexibility]]''': In the olden days you needed a typist with some carbon paper: there was a real cost to manipulating words. You were trained to be economical. {{yngwie malmsteen paradox capsule}} | *'''[[Yngwie Malmsteen paradox|Allows infinite flexibility]]''': In the olden days you needed a typist with some carbon paper: there was a real cost to manipulating words. You were trained to be economical. {{yngwie malmsteen paradox capsule}} | ||
*'''Doesn’t [[disintermediate]]''': the heat signature of the information revolution is its capacity to ''[[disintermediation|disintermediate]]''. Suddenly, any random could publish anything to anyone, free of charge. Teenagers in London could engage manufacturers in Pakistan to produce custom cricket merchandise.<ref>if you want some top cricket gear at great prices hit up @arborcricket on instagram. </ref> Fat middle aged lawyers can partially fulfil teenage dreams to be record rock music and publish it to the world.<ref>Dangerboy: potential audience : 7 billion. Actual audience: 1. ''But that's not the point.''</ref> But, inside the great steampunk Bolshevik machine that is a modern financial services firm, the organisational psychology militates against it. The great orthodoxy will insist on total top-down control in the form a bureaucratic chain of command: procurement, internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], a process literally intended to remove the optionality, flexibility and improvisational utility that disintermediation promises: whatever value the concept had will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using it is a ''chore''. An imposition. | *'''Doesn’t [[disintermediate]]''': the heat signature of the information revolution is its capacity to ''[[disintermediation|disintermediate]]''. Suddenly, any random could publish anything to anyone, free of charge. Teenagers in London could engage manufacturers in Pakistan to produce custom cricket merchandise.<ref>if you want some top cricket gear at great prices hit up @arborcricket on instagram. </ref> Fat middle aged lawyers can partially fulfil teenage dreams to be record rock music and publish it to the world.<ref>[[Dangerboy]]: potential audience : 7 billion. Actual audience: 1. ''But that's not the point.''</ref> But, inside the great steampunk Bolshevik machine that is a modern financial services firm, the organisational psychology militates against it. The great orthodoxy will insist on total top-down control in the form a bureaucratic chain of command: procurement, internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], a process literally intended to remove the optionality, flexibility and improvisational utility that disintermediation promises: whatever value the concept had will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using it is a ''chore''. An imposition. | ||
*'''[[Software as a service]]''': software developers have no greater interest in disintermediating than their Marxist paymasters. For [[intermediation]] - I beg your pardon: [[software as a service]] - ''is how they take their cut''. They are [[rentier]]s. This would be more defensible were the [[reg tech]] products unique, imaginative or excellent, but they tend to be generic and underwhelming. | *'''[[Software as a service]]''': software developers have no greater interest in disintermediating than their Marxist paymasters. For [[intermediation]] - I beg your pardon: [[software as a service]] - ''is how they take their cut''. They are [[rentier]]s. This would be more defensible were the [[reg tech]] products unique, imaginative or excellent, but they tend to be generic and underwhelming. | ||
*'''Doesn’t provide user flexibility''': [[policy]] will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop. | *'''Doesn’t provide user flexibility''': [[policy]] will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*'''Remember the [[meatware]]''': If you convert your [[Meatware|user]] experience from “answering nuanced legal questions” into “completing a mandatory questionnaire”, you have lost. [[Document assembly]] applications: I’m talking to you. You are trying to make humans behave like machines. That is stupid. ''Humans aren’t good at emulating machines''. Humans are better than machines precisely because they aren’t machine-like. If you have reduced your process to a rules-based questionnaire, ''you don’t need humans at all''. Get a machine to do it - hook it up to the trading system directly. | *'''Remember the [[meatware]]''': If you convert your [[Meatware|user]] experience from “answering nuanced legal questions” into “completing a mandatory questionnaire”, you have lost. [[Document assembly]] applications: I’m talking to you. You are trying to make humans behave like machines. That is stupid. ''Humans aren’t good at emulating machines''. Humans are better than machines precisely because they aren’t machine-like. If you have reduced your process to a rules-based questionnaire, ''you don’t need humans at all''. Get a machine to do it - hook it up to the trading system directly. | ||
[[File:Tipp-Ex.jpg|thumb|left|For your monitor, sir.]] | [[File:Tipp-Ex.jpg|thumb|left|For your monitor, sir.]] | ||
===What reg tech ''should'' do=== | |||
The aim of [[reg tech]] should be to work with lawyers and to respect this divide between things machines are good at (accurately, cheaply and quickly following orders) and things the meatware is good at (interpretation; judgment; lateral thinking; dealing with conundrums; figuring out what to do when the instructions run out), and to divide labour accordingly: | |||
*'''Reduce [[Risk - Risk Article|risk]]''': reviewing a {{t|contract}} more systematically than a lawyer by reference to pre-described policies and therefore more reliably picking up things that a human, however skilled, might not. | |||
*'''Reduce [[waste]]''': Make the process more efficient by dealing cheaply with formal issues so that the expensive unit (the in-house lawyer) is only engaged in the stuff really requiring skilled legal attention. Thus, the “touch time” is shorter, and the cost of negotiating the contract lower. Since the machine handles all the basic stuff it allows the lawyer to concentrate her judgment on the difficult issues without getting bogged down on the tedious stuff that is always the same. | |||
*'''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=== | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||