82,891
edits
Template:M intro work Large Learning Model: Difference between revisions
Template:M intro work Large Learning Model (view source)
Revision as of 14:41, 29 July 2023
, 29 July 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
''But that does not work at all at all for legal language''. Legal language is code: it 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. Legal drafting is as close to computer code as natural language gets: a form of symbol processing where the meaning resides wholly within and is fully limited by the text. | ''But that does not work at all at all for legal language''. Legal language is code: it 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. Legal drafting is as close to computer code as natural language gets: a form of symbol processing where the meaning resides wholly within and is fully limited by the text. | ||
But unlike computer code, the operating system it is written for is not a closed logical system, and even the best-laid code can still run amok. You can’t run it in a sandbox to see if it works. | But unlike computer code, the operating system it is written for is not a closed logical system, and even the best-laid code can still run amok. You can’t run it in a sandbox to see if it works. You have to test in production. | ||
This is not to say that a [[large language model]] can’t be used to generate legal [[boilerplate]]: it just can’t do it by itself, and the process of working with it will be a lot more labour-intensive than the first round of generation suggests. An LLM will silt towards an intended meaning asymptotically, getting progressively less efficient as it goes. | |||
We have seen it suggested that one might invert the processes instead, and use the machine to critique drafts prepared by humans, to identify potential errors and omissions. But this is to get the [[division of labour]] exactly backwards, using expensive, context-sensitive [[meatware]] to do the legwork and a dumb machine to provide the “magic”. | |||
Without wishing to seem all John Connor about it, there is a question of basic human dignity going on here. We ''need to stop subordinating ourselves to machines''. We should not compromising just to optimise for machine processing, to make it easier for machines to manage. There is a question of self-belief — self-respect — here. | |||
And besides, there is a design flaw in any legal process which supposes that the risk in a legal contract is distributed evenly throughout its content, and that therefore the legal proposition is one of handling volume. | |||
Boilerplate is boilerplate for a reason. It is pinned down; done, it takes the goes without saying out of the equation. ''[[The quotidian is a utility, not an asset]]''. There is nothing to be gained from having a large language model drafting it from scratch each time. The important part of the legal drafting process is not assembling the boilerplate, but getting the deal-specific bespoke bits right. | |||
====Meet the new boss —==== | ====Meet the new boss —==== | ||