3 ms·

Nothing will be 100% perfect but computing power and machine learning has drastically improved in the past few years and changed everything. Also the basic tec

Nothing will be 100% perfect but computing power and machine learning has drastically improved in the past few years and changed everything. Also the basic tech you mentioned like OCR and speech recognition is actually so good now that it runs on your mobile device, can tailor itself to the way you talk and write, and can even enable real-time translation to other languages across mediums like something out of a sci-fi movie.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Does anyone ever use speech recognition to dictate a legal document where a milkion dollars hangs in the balance? No, it would be dumb. So why should that layer, after meticulasly checking this document, trust his life to another ML system, just like the one that just failed him?
- manigandham 5y ago
  Lawyers make mistakes too. Perhaps you’re surprised to hear that but there’s an entire section of law to deal with this. And yes lawyers use software dictation all the time because it’s faster and more accurate than a human assistant. In fact ML does already do a better job in tasks like crawling through case research, while people then take over for strategy and deduction. This split between low-level mechanical vs high-level creative thinking is a good distinction between ML vs human application, and most driving falls in the former.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "lawyers use software dictation all the time" And they don't check the output? Are you sure about that, because the few I've spoken to say they won't touch it with a barge pole. If they do check, then they don't trust the system. In driving you don't to hit pause and check the output.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      You're conflating issues. Software is already better at transcribing than humans. [1] And lawyers will verify the contents whether it's done by software or a person, because neither is perfect and their job is the higher-level intention of the document, not the copying of words. But they still like the machine saving the human from tedious work. 1. https://www.nuance.com/dragon/business-solutions/dragon-legal-anywhere.html https://www.nuance.com/dragon/business-solutions/dragon-lega...

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Does anyone ever use speech recognition to dictate a legal document where a milkion dollars hangs in the balance? No, it would be dumb. So why should that layer, after meticulasly checking this document, trust his life to another ML system, just like the one that just failed him?

manigandham 5y ago
Lawyers make mistakes too. Perhaps you’re surprised to hear that but there’s an entire section of law to deal with this. And yes lawyers use software dictation all the time because it’s faster and more accurate than a human assistant. In fact ML does already do a better job in tasks like crawling through case research, while people then take over for strategy and deduction. This split between low-level mechanical vs high-level creative thinking is a good distinction between ML vs human application, and most driving falls in the former.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "lawyers use software dictation all the time" And they don't check the output? Are you sure about that, because the few I've spoken to say they won't touch it with a barge pole. If they do check, then they don't trust the system. In driving you don't to hit pause and check the output.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    You're conflating issues. Software is already better at transcribing than humans. [1] And lawyers will verify the contents whether it's done by software or a person, because neither is perfect and their job is the higher-level intention of the document, not the copying of words. But they still like the machine saving the human from tedious work. 1. https://www.nuance.com/dragon/business-solutions/dragon-legal-anywhere.html https://www.nuance.com/dragon/business-solutions/dragon-lega...