82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
The ''last'' thing a legal drafter wants is to cede control of the narrative to the reader. Rather, a draft seeks to squash exactly the ambiguity that the metaphors of good literature require. | The ''last'' thing a legal drafter wants is to cede control of the narrative to the reader. Rather, a draft seeks to squash exactly the ambiguity that the metaphors of good literature require. | ||
Legal drafting is not literature in any sense: it reduces the reader to a machine: it hard codes unambiguous meaning. It leaves as little room as possible for interpretation. This is why [[legalese]] is so laboured. It is designed to remove all doubt, ambiguity and ''fun'' out of | Legal drafting is not literature in any sense: it reduces the reader to a machine: it hard codes unambiguous meaning. It leaves as little room as possible for interpretation. This is why [[legalese]] is so laboured. It is designed to remove all doubt, ambiguity and ''fun'' out of reading. It renders it mechanical, precise and reliable. It bestows [[certainty]] at the cost of [[possibility]] regardless of the cost, and to hell with literary style and elegance. | ||
We should regard legal drafting as closer to computer code | If law is literature then it is unique in that it is the only one to favour certainty over possibility. Unique in that it is the one in which we must still Grant soul jurisdiction to authorial intent for Scott the problem is, a large language model has no authorial intent. | ||
We should regard legal drafting as closer to computer code: a form of symbol processing where the meaning resides wholly within and is fully limited by the text. | |||
====Meet the new boss —==== | ====Meet the new boss —==== |