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

Now: the punchline. Given how important the reader and her cultural baggage are to the creative act in normal literature, we can see how a large learning model is a feasible model in that domain: to move from a model where ''most'' of the creative work is done by the reader to one where ''all'' of it is is no great step. Indeed, there is enough mediocre literature out there that meets this description now, only written by humans, but to formula and slavishly aping hackneyed archetypes that is is no great stretch to do without the writer altogether. In that case, what does it matter what the text says, as long as it is coherent enough for an enterprising reader to make something out of it?

 

''But that does not work at all at all for legal language''. The language must say exactly what the parties require: nothing more or less, and it must do it in a way that leaves nothing open to a later creative act of interpretation. We should regard legal drafting as closer to computer code than literature: a form of symbol processing where the meaning resides wholly within and is fully limited by the text. But unlike computer code, you can’t run it in a sandbox to see if it works.