Why is legaltech so disappointing?: Difference between revisions

Why is legaltech so disappointing? (view source)

Revision as of 14:02, 26 August 2020

785 bytes added , 26 August 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,194

edits

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 And so he does.
-Aside: If you want to see real AI and really powerful algorithms at work have a look at modern music production software.<ref>The [[AI]] drummer Apple’s [[Logic Pro X]] is ''unbelievable''.</ref>. The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be run without interference by the user; the expectation is ''no [[software as a service|software-as-a-service]]'' ''because the software is so intuitive you don’t need any service''.
+Aside: If you want to see real AI and really powerful algorithms at work have a look at modern music production software.<ref>The [[AI]] drummer Apple’s [[Logic Pro X]] is ''unbelievable''.</ref> The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be run without interference by the user; the expectation is ''no [[software as a service|software-as-a-service]]'' ''because the software is so intuitive you don’t need any service''.
 *'''[[Yngwie Malmsteen paradox|Allows infinite flexibility]]''': In the olden days you needed a typist with some carbon paper: there was a real cost to manipulating words. You were trained to be economical.  {{yngwie malmsteen paradox capsule}}
-*'''Doesn’t [[disintermediate]]''': the heat signature of the information revolution is its capacity to ''[[disintermediation|disintermediate]]''. Suddenly, any random could publish anything to anyone, free of charge. Teenagers in London could engage manufacturers in Pakistan to produce custom cricket merchandise.<ref>if you want some top cricket gear at great prices hit up @arborcricket on instagram. </ref> Fat middle aged lawyers can partially fulfil teenage dreams to be record rock music and publish it to the world.<ref>[[Dangerboy]]: potential audience : 7 billion. Actual audience: 1. ''But that's not the point.''</ref> But, inside the [[great steampunk machine|great steampunk Bolshevik machine]] that is a modern financial services firm, the organisational psychology militates against it. The great orthodoxy will insist on total top-down control in the form a bureaucratic chain of command: procurement, internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], a process literally intended to remove the optionality, flexibility and improvisational utility that disintermediation promises: whatever value the concept had will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using it is a ''chore''. An imposition.
+*'''Doesn’t [[disintermediate]]''': the heat signature of the information revolution is its capacity to ''[[disintermediation|disintermediate]]''. Suddenly, any random could publish anything to anyone, free of charge. Teenagers in London could engage manufacturers in Pakistan to produce custom cricket merchandise.<ref>if you want some top cricket gear at great prices hit up @arborcricket on instagram. </ref> Fat middle aged lawyers can partially fulfil teenage dreams to be record rock music and publish it to the world.<ref>[[Dangerboy]]: potential audience : 7 billion. Actual audience: 1. ''But that's not the point.''</ref> But, inside the [[great steampunk machine|great steampunk Bolshevik machine]] that is a modern financial services firm, the organisational psychology militates against it. The great orthodoxy will insist on total top-down control in the form a bureaucratic chain of command: procurement, internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], a process literally intended to remove the optionality, flexibility and improvisational utility that disintermediation promises: whatever value the concept had will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using it is a ''chore''. This is not how it was meant to be. Few successful innovations in the history of the world have made things ''more [[tedious]]'' for workers than they already were.
-*'''[[Software as a service]]''': software developers have no greater interest in disintermediating than their Marxist paymasters. For [[intermediation]] - I beg your pardon: [[software as a service]] - ''is how they take their cut''. They are [[rentier]]s. This would be more defensible were the [[reg tech]] products unique, imaginative or excellent, but they tend to be generic and underwhelming.
+*'''[[Software as a service]]''': Software developers — especially bad ones — have no greater interest in disintermediating themselves from their product than do their Marxist paymasters. For re-[[intermediation]] — I beg your pardon: [[software as a service]]<ref>Did I say software as a service? I mean ''[[rent-seeking as a service]]''.</ref> — ''is how they take their cut''. They are [[rentier]]s. This would be more defensible were the [[reg tech]] products they flog unique, imaginative or even any good, but they tend to be generic and underwhelming. The real special sauce comes from the ''[[user]]'' painstakingly ''training'' the software to do its bidding. A clever vendor will harness that training, repackage it and sell it to other clients as the “service” the software is providing. This is an excellent [[chiz]], by the way: charging one client to train your stupid software so you can flog it to another client, who will train it a bit more, so you can flog it to ''another'' cl ... Well, you get the point.
 *'''Doesn’t provide user flexibility''': [[policy]] will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop.
 *'''Doesn’t provide out of the box usable content''': to be usable the will require lawyers, and there are generally precious few of those, and they generally are refuseniks and low-cost-location rent-a-seat types who can follow instructions but aren't any good at ''writing'' them.