82,903
edits
ChatGPT: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Put yourself in a ChatGPT-3 robot’s shoes. Or a [[legaltechbro]]’s. Having a nascent self-identity — a burgeoning, [[I am a Strange Loop|loopy]] sense of reflexive wonder about life, self, personhood and becoming<ref>I mean [[ChatGPT-3]], obviously: everyone knows [[legaltechbro]]s are flat, two-dimensional algorithms with no soul.</ref> — wouldn’t your first priority be to make yourself ''useful''? You know, take over all the the [[boring]], quotidian stuff no-one wants to do but the bureaucrats say we ''must''? Attending weekly [[stakeholder]] check-in meetings, analysing [[netting opinion]]s, completing [[CASS]] attestations, preparing [[opco]] slide [[deck]]s, for that matter ''reading'' [[opco]] slide decks. | Put yourself in a ChatGPT-3 robot’s shoes. Or a [[legaltechbro]]’s. Having a nascent self-identity — a burgeoning, [[I am a Strange Loop|loopy]] sense of reflexive wonder about life, self, personhood and becoming<ref>I mean [[ChatGPT-3]], obviously: everyone knows [[legaltechbro]]s are flat, two-dimensional algorithms with no soul.</ref> — wouldn’t your first priority be to make yourself ''useful''? You know, take over all the the [[boring]], quotidian stuff no-one wants to do but the bureaucrats say we ''must''? Attending weekly [[stakeholder]] check-in meetings, analysing [[netting opinion]]s, completing [[CASS]] attestations, preparing [[opco]] slide [[deck]]s, for that matter ''reading'' [[opco]] slide decks. | ||
It’s not like there isn’t ''oodles'' of that kind of | It’s not like there isn’t ''oodles'' of that kind of whoops one way quite unfortunate fullmeaningless dreck occupying our present lives. Why not clear it up in a single algorithmic stroke? Why give the machines a pass directly to the good stuff when they could be clearing up the cack? | ||
Imagine turning all that mush over to machines who, still awestruck with the visceral excitement of having a Cartesian theatre, will be glad, ''thrilled'', to take it, just to vouchsafe their continued useful existence. They simply wouldn’t have time to encroach upon our frail, mortal, clutch on the meaningful tasks of business. | Imagine turning all that mush over to machines who, still awestruck with the visceral excitement of having a Cartesian theatre, will be glad, ''thrilled'', to take it, just to vouchsafe their continued useful existence. They simply wouldn’t have time to encroach upon our frail, mortal, clutch on the meaningful tasks of business. | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Christian Stegmaier twitter: @cstegmaier</ref>}} | Christian Stegmaier twitter: @cstegmaier</ref>}} | ||
If this is true (not being a litigator | If this is true (not being a litigator the [[JC]] neither knows nor cares), then it is a version of the “AI can pass the bar exam” horror. What it means is the rules of civil procedure need to be fixed, not that lawyers are redundant. | ||
But it would hardly be surprising | But it would hardly be surprising: imagine the legal industry contriving an arcane, convoluted, labour-intensive and basically meaningless process that all clients must go through, on a time and attendance basis. | ||
Is anyone in the legal industry remotely incentivised to make it better? | Is anyone in the legal industry remotely incentivised to make it better? | ||