Template:M intro work Large Learning Model: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro work Large Learning Model (view source)

Revision as of 15:58, 22 July 2023

4 bytes added , 22 July 2023

→‎Cui bono?

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,892

edits

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 It is a happy accident that, generally, (2) begets (1): the more ''ineffable'' something is, the longer it takes, and the harder it is to work with. The longer it takes, the more you can charge.
-Commercial legal contracts are like that. Long, and once they have calcified into templates, fiddly. for lawyers, this is a capital state of affairs. for this reason no commercial law firm on the planet ''really'' cares for [[plain English]]. Oh, they all ''say'', they do, of course — but ''come on''. Have you ever read law firm [[boilerplate]]?
+Commercial legal contracts are like that. Long, and once they have calcified into templates, fiddly. For lawyers, this is a capital state of affairs. It is why no commercial law firm on the planet ''really'' cares for [[plain English]]. Oh, they all ''say'', they do, of course — but ''come on''. Have you ever read law firm [[boilerplate]]?
-This is, in itself, a neat “[[simplification|simplification defeat device]]”: if you make a contract template sufficiently convoluted, the one-off cost of simplifying it so vastly outweighs the cost of just “tweaking” and living with it that few clients will ever take that first step to simplify. Even though the the ongoing costs dwarf the upfront costs, the long-term cost-savings are always over that short term hump.
+This is, in itself, a neat “[[simplification|simplification defeat device]]”: if you make a contract template sufficiently convoluted, the one-off cost of simplifying it so vastly outweighs the cost of just “tweaking” and living with it that few clients will ever take that first step to simplify. Even though the the ongoing costs of ''not'' rationalising dwarf the one-off costs of doing so, the long-term savings are always over that hump.
-In any case, it will be ''lawyers'' who start to use [[LLM]]s as a tool, not their clients. Why? ''Because of that [[ineffability]]''. An [[LLM]] is a pattern-matching device. It understands nothing. It cannot provide unmediated legal advice. It can only ever be a “back-breaker”: the “last mile” needs a human who knows what she is doing, understands the context and complicated human psychology at play in the cauldron of commercial [[negotiation]]. An [[LLM]] can draw pretty, impressive-at-a-distance doodles, but it cannot do that. Nor can it write [[legal opinion]]s — well, not meaningful ones — and nor, unmediated by a law firm, does it have the insurance policy or deep, suable pockets for which a client is paying when it seeks legal advice in the first place.
+And bear in mind it will be ''lawyers'' who deploy [[LLM]]s as a tool, not their clients. Why? ''Because of that [[ineffability]]''. An [[LLM]] is a pattern-matching device. It understands nothing. It cannot provide unmediated legal advice. It can only ever be a “back-breaker”: the “last mile” needs a human who knows what she is doing, understands the context and complicated human psychology at play in the cauldron of 1 [[negotiation]]. An [[LLM]] can draw pretty, impressive-at-a-distance doodles, but it cannot do that. Nor can it write [[legal opinion]]s — well, not meaningful ones — and nor, unmediated by a law firm, does it have the insurance policy or deep, suable pockets for which a client is paying when it seeks legal advice in the first place.
 An [[LLM]] can only be deployed, that is to say, by someone with skin in the game; who is prepared to put ''herself'' in jeopardy by accepting the assignment, which jeopardy she defends by the simple expedient of ''knowing what she is doing'' and checking her [[LLM]]’s output.