Legal diction software

Not_A_Racist

Pat Mustard wrote: »

...

Typing is a waste of time for preparing standard documents and carrying out routine tasks, of which there are many.

...

Artifical intelligence all the way for those tasks so.

My point on this thread has been that if secretaries can produce finished documents from instructions like 'insert standard section 68 paragragh here' then so could a relatively basic AI system, like Watson, which currently exists.


The OP asked if solicitors need a new generation of dictation and voice recognition software.

My point is that if the voice recognition software can successfully use context and semantics to correctly understand human speech then it could also carry out routine tasks, like actually doing the secretaries job for him or her. Especially if large parts of the job are relatively routine.

The AI system, which we can be sure is in development, could produce finished documents from instructions like 'insert standard section 68 paragragh here, just in the same way that a secretary could.

Of course the AI system needs to be trained just like a human secretary does but once the AI system is trained it doesn't need to eat, or to rest, or to be paid.


Voice recognition requires AI. It isn't possible to discuss voice recognition without mentioning AI.

Pat Mustard

You were on about solicitors refusing to do their own typing before, on account of it being women's work, as you put it. Now you are back on about some AI solution or other, again. You tell us that we can be sure that it is 'in development'.

I'm sure that the cure for baldness is in development as well but it's not available as a viable and trusted solution on the open market.

I'd hate to think that you're trying to wind us up here.

Not_A_Racist

Grolschevik wrote: »

On a related note, can anyone explain why it is generally deemed to be a better use of personal time and/or firm resources to dictate for, say, an hour and a half and then have a secretary spend the guts of half a day typing it out... Rather than just typing it yourself in the first place?

...

That poster above had posed the question, why do solicitors dictate for hours rather than type for hours? My answer to his question was in the post immediately following his question.


I was clearly responding to that question and speculating and trying to provide an exhaustive list of categories of reasons as to why solicitors would spend hours dictating when they could have spent hours typing instead.

I'm not here to disparage solicitors or their secretaries.

Could I ask that I be taken at face value please?
I have no hidden motives here.

Pat Mustard

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Could I ask that I be taken at face value please?

Oh I think that they have been.