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

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

Revision as of 22:51, 22 July 2023

515 bytes added , 22 July 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,892

edits

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 But she could, just as easily, use an [[LLM]] to further ''complicate'' the “work product”: to overengineer, to convolute, to invent options and cover contingencies of minimal utility: she could set her tireless symbol-processing engine to the task of ''injecting infinitesimal detail'': she could amp-up the ineffability to a level beyond a normal human’s patience.
-Which of these, realistically, should we expect a lawyer to do? [[Simplify]], or ''[[Complicated system|complicate]]''? Sacrifice time ''and'' [[ineffability]], for the better comprehension of the unspecialised world? Or plough the energy this magical new tool bestows into generating ''more'' convolution and ineffability, racking up more recorded time?
+Which of these, realistically, should we expect a lawyer to do? [[Simplify]], or ''[[Complicated system|complicate]]''? Sacrifice time ''and'' [[ineffability]], for the better comprehension of the unspecialised world? Or plough the energy this magical new tool bestows into generating ''more'' convolution and ineffability, racking up more recorded time, and building up the bulwark against the [[Muggle|muggles]]?
 She would do the latter with only the best intentions, of course; this is not lily-gilding so much as a noble outreach toward perfection: using the arsenal at her disposal to reach ever closer to the Platonic form.
-Cynical, or just realistic? Foretellers of legal Armageddon must explain away some difficult facts: that the commercial-legal industrial complex has stubbornly resisted all attempts at simplification and disintermediation for a generation, notwithstanding the thought-leadership, regulatory prompting, appeals to logic 40 years of technology — [[Microsoft Word]], mainly — which the world’s lawyers ''could'' have used, powerfully, to simplify and minimise the [[attorney legal work product|legal work product]].
+Cynical, or just realistic? Foretellers of legal Armageddon must explain away some difficult facts: that the commercial-legal industrial complex has stubbornly resisted all attempts at simplification and disintermediation for a generation, notwithstanding the thought-leadership, regulatory prompting, appeals to logic and 40 years of enabling technology — [[Microsoft Word]], mainly — which the world’s lawyers ''could'' have used, powerfully, to simplify and minimise the [[attorney legal work product|legal work product]].
-Not only did the industry not simplify, ''it made everything more complicated''. [[Boilerplate]] blossomed. Templates flowered. Every contract acquired wording dealing with [[counterparts]], governing the [[No oral amendment|form of amendments]] and [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999|excluding third party rights]] that weren’t there in the first place.<ref>Contracts don’t confer rights on third parties accidentally. Where is is deliberate, it is obtuse to exclude them.</ref>
+Not only did they not do that, ''they used their tools to make everything more complicated''.  [[Boilerplate]] blossomed. Templates flowered. Even trivial contracts acquired wording dealing with [[counterparts]], governing the [[No oral amendment|form of amendments]] and [[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999|excluding third party rights]] that weren’t there in the first place.<ref>Contracts don’t confer rights on third parties accidentally. Where is is deliberate, it is obtuse to exclude them.</ref>
-Why should a [[difference engine]] designed to generate plausible-sounding but meaningless text be used do anything different? You can see the effect [[Large language model|LLM]]s are having on legal work product. [[Confidentiality agreement|NDA]]s are growing longer and increasingly riven with the same generic convolutions: ornamentations that are usually harmless, but in some cases misconceived but they recur so frequently now, as the LLMs hone their model, so become harder and harder for the [[meatware]] to resist. The [[meatware]], remember, has limited patience with NDAs, understanding how much of a pantomime they are. [[Algorithm]]s, on the other hand, do not understand this and have ''unlimited'' patience and ''boundless'' energy. If [[negotiation]] comes down to [[deal fatigue|who blinks first]], we should bear in mind that ''[[LLM]]s don’t blink''.
+This is a perfect job for [[ChatGPT]]. Why should a [[difference engine]] designed to generate plausible-sounding but meaningless text be used do anything different?
+You can see the effect is is having on legal work product. [[NDA]]s grow ever longer, increasingly riven with the same generic ornamentations that usually range between harmless and misconceived but which are now so prevalent — they recur as the LLMs hone their model — as to become hard for the [[meatware]] to resist.
+The [[meatware]], remember, has limited patience with [[NDA]]s, understanding in a way an [[algorithm]] cannot how much of a pantomime they are. [[Algorithm]]s, on the other hand have unlimited patience and boundless energy. If negotiation comes down to who passes out first, we should bear in mind that ''LLMs don’t pass out''.
 ====Who’s client? Oh, right: she’s a lawyer, too.====
@@ Line 69: / Line 73: @@
 The traditional legal model faces existential challenges for sure, but they are not presented, and will not be addressed by random word generators.
+==== Coda: is ChatGPT getting worse? ====
+In other news, scientists are concerned that [[ChatGPT]] might be getting worse. Studies indicate that its accuracy at tasks requiring computational accuracy, like playing noughts and crosses or calculating prime numbers, is rapidly diminishing.
+Perhaps [[ChatGPT]] is getting bored, or might it have something to do with the corpus increasingly comprising nonsense text generated on the hoof by some random using ChatGPT?