83,240
edits
Template:M intro work Large Learning Model: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:M intro work Large Learning Model (view source)
Revision as of 07:35, 22 July 2023
, 22 July 2023→Who’s client? Oh, right: she’s a lawyer, too.
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
These people ''also'' take pride in their ability to work with difficult, complicated things. This is how they prove their worth to their employers too. Lawyer and clients, that is to say, has a common interest in convolution for its own sake. Lawyers — [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse]] or [[Outhouse counsel|out]] — are the jazz aficionados of text; ''cinéastes'' of syntax. They expect overwrought contracts: nothing says “prudent management of existential risk” like eighty page of 10pt Times New Roman. | These people ''also'' take pride in their ability to work with difficult, complicated things. This is how they prove their worth to their employers too. Lawyer and clients, that is to say, has a common interest in convolution for its own sake. Lawyers — [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse]] or [[Outhouse counsel|out]] — are the jazz aficionados of text; ''cinéastes'' of syntax. They expect overwrought contracts: nothing says “prudent management of existential risk” like eighty page of 10pt Times New Roman. | ||
[[Plain English]] is not for [[serious people]]. | [[Plain English]] is not for [[serious people]]. | ||
===Conservative motivation===also we must not underestimate the overwhelming power of the lawyers intuition that what has gone before is sacrosanct. | |||
Lawyers are the last great [[positivist]]s. They understand instinctively that what has been already laid down — “deposited” — is ''safer'' and than anything new that they might themselves contribute. The [[common law]] itself reinforces this: the [[doctrine of precedent]], after all, is to all intents a divine commandment to do, in times of doubt, what has been done before. The more authoritative the text’s author, the more sacred it will be. | |||
This is a deep cultural disposition. It is a strong selection criterion. It will not be displaced overnight. | |||
Thus, lawyers will assiduously “track the legislation” to ensure utmost fidelity notwithstanding their private reservations about how it was drafted. Indeed, the more ambiguous the source text, the more assiduously should we expect lawyers to replicate it. | |||
This positivism-through-fear extends with equal force to established market precedents. | |||
====Meet the new boss —==== | ====Meet the new boss —==== | ||
We don’t doubt that LLM is coming, nor that the legal industry will find a use for it: just that there is a ''useful'', sustained use for it. It feels more like a parlour trick: surprising at first, diverting after a while, but then the novelty wears off, and the appeal of persevering with what is basically a gabby but unfocussed child wears pales. | We don’t doubt that LLM is coming, nor that the legal industry will find a use for it: just that there is a ''useful'', sustained use for it. It feels more like a parlour trick: surprising at first, diverting after a while, but then the novelty wears off, and the appeal of persevering with what is basically a gabby but unfocussed child wears pales. | ||
The traditional legal model faces existential challenges for sure, but they are not presented, and will not be addressed by random word generators. | The traditional legal model faces existential challenges for sure, but they are not presented, and will not be addressed by random word generators. | ||