82,891
edits
Reg tech: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
===What reg tech often ''does'' do=== | ===What reg tech often ''does'' do=== | ||
In this [[user]]’s experience [[reg tech]] tools tend to invert these priorities: | In this [[user]]’s experience [[reg tech]] tools tend 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 | *'''Risk reduction''': Unless your [[natural language processing]] is pretty special<ref>It won’t be.</ref>, machines cannot pick up all syntactical, legal nuances. They 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”. | *'''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. | *'''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. | ||