Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#21

Post by kornish »

F_J_H wrote: post #3

You've likely heard the quote that "every company is a technology company", mostly used in the context of companies needing to be doing everything they can to leverage and exploit new technology, or they'll be left in the dust by more proactive competitors. With that in mind, a key quote for me in the article was this: >To help spur internal disruption, the company keeps tabs on 2,000 technology ventures, using about…

Quite a few banks have something called "Innovation Labs" or similar whose job is to do exactly that: match emerging technology with appropriate internal use-cases. Part need-finder and part technologist. Capital One Labs, for instance, was crucial in helping the startup where I work land its first F500 deal. I'd imagine that "innovation labs"-type units are probably emerging at enterprises outside of finance as well.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#22

Post by AlwaysRock »

In Chicago JPMorgan is where a lot of software developers go to work for 5-7 years before getting a VP promotion and leaving for a C level role. I've seen dozens of developers follow this exact track. Glad to hear they are doing something interesting during that time.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#23

Post by F_J_H »

flat6turbo wrote: post #17
F_J_H wrote: post #3

You've likely heard the quote that "every company is a technology company", mostly used in the context of companies needing to be doing everything they can to leverage and exploit new technology, or they'll be left in the dust by more proactive competitors. With that in mind, a key quote for me in the article was this: >To help spur internal disruption, the company keeps tabs on 2,000 technology ventures, using about…

isn't that what the CIO is responsible for?

It depends on whose definition you use with respect to the CIO/CTO role. In my experience, CIOs are typically more focused on the internal IT infrastructure, keeping it secure, running smoothly, etc., (i.e. an more inward facing almost operational role), whereas a CTO should be outward facing looking and building technological advantage for the firm (i.e. a more outward facing commercial role).

However, I've seen it argued both ways. I'd be interested to hear what others think on the differences in the CIO and CTO roles.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#24

Post by _-__--- »

isubkhankulov wrote: post #18

> Not all of those bets, which include several projects based on a distributed ledger, like blockchain, will pay off, which JPMorgan says is OK. One example executives are fond of mentioning: The firm built an electronic platform to help trade credit-default swaps that sits unused. so it looks like JPM might have written off "blockchain"?

To me, that reads as the author writing off blockchain moreso than the JPM representative.

To be fair, there are plenty of ways that blockchained systems can fail.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#25

Post by Eridrus »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #8

Laws resemble computer programs in many ways, so I suppose it is only natural that computers be made to interpret them.

Static analysis is far from a solved problem, so I do the think that's a useful analogy for considering whether we can automate some analysis :)

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#26

Post by tluyben2 »

tehlike wrote: post #12
raverbashing wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the algo is a nice cop-out by Google and Paypal and on top of that they can afford canning their customer without many issues for them But how much is that going to cost them over long term instead of having actual thinking people reviewing the cases remains to be seen

come on. there are >6b people on earth, with many many fraudsters trying to make money at other people's expense. It's a problem that has to be automated sooner or later. Computers are also much faster in fraud detection. You use your credit card at some store that you have never been, at an odd hour, and your bank triggers a fraud lock, and declines the transaction. That's efficiency. When there are billions of tran…

But the fraud algo's + the support are absolute crap. I am known to Google + Paypal, I am logged on as a user, I have credit cards and bank accounts attached, I am with both about since they came online. I made money for both; I am not talking as a consumer, i'm talking as a business owner. Which is not the 6b people on earth; it's far less.

The problem is that companies actually, legally steal money like that; I did not fraud anyone ever and yet I have to provide proof (which I already did 100 times; they have my passport copy, bank statements, where I live, know me for 15+ years etc (and have data on me for that time)) and then still smug (...) canned responses that 'this is the way it is'. But I have no recourse besides legal action which is usually not worth it. So I just have to suck it up. It's theft; I did not do anything. That is my gripe; outside internet, it would not stand. But luckily I left that all behind many years ago; this just brought it back in my head :) Sorry for ranting.

I'm all for automation, but not for bad automation. Google is still party to that in many ways; I am logged into Google / Gmail / Plus / Drive / Photos and do a search; I get a captcha request because I 'might be a bot', then I fill it correctly and it says my computer might be sending automated queries. IT IS NOT and it's just a disgrace to the company, when I am logged on as a very long term paying loyal user, that they cannot simply see 'oh, that's Tycho, let's not annoy him with stuff that he never does/did/will (and he uses Linux, is a programmer, uses Noscript so his laptop is very much not compromised) do and oh yeah he is logged in via 2-factor auth so it's him'. Boggles the mind. Not sure how you can defend it.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#27

Post by Rmilb »

isubkhankulov wrote: post #18

> Not all of those bets, which include several projects based on a distributed ledger, like blockchain, will pay off, which JPMorgan says is OK. One example executives are fond of mentioning: The firm built an electronic platform to help trade credit-default swaps that sits unused. so it looks like JPM might have written off "blockchain"?

They have not written off blockchain, it was just announced yesterday that they are founding members of the new "Ethereum Enterprise Alliance".

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-intel-banks-form-ente...

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#29

Post by bradleyjg »

ycombinete wrote: post #5

This makes me wonder if we'll be entering a legal world that's complex to the degree that only computers can understand it.

Probably not any time soon. The issue is that when push comes to shove, a contract is something that gets interpreted by a court. Judges are okay calling in expert witnesses to look at various kinds of evidence, but contract interpretation is a core part of their responsibility and they aren't going to willingly pass that off to computers.

You might see automated arbitration and evolution of contract language to facilitate that, but even given the strong laws regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements the courts are still are the ultimate backstop and have to be able to read and understand a contract.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#30

Post by raverbashing »

tehlike wrote: post #12
raverbashing wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the algo is a nice cop-out by Google and Paypal and on top of that they can afford canning their customer without many issues for them But how much is that going to cost them over long term instead of having actual thinking people reviewing the cases remains to be seen

come on. there are >6b people on earth, with many many fraudsters trying to make money at other people's expense. It's a problem that has to be automated sooner or later. Computers are also much faster in fraud detection. You use your credit card at some store that you have never been, at an odd hour, and your bank triggers a fraud lock, and declines the transaction. That's efficiency. When there are billions of tran…

The problem is not automating, but Google shoots first and doesn't ask questions later. This leaves false positives helpless.

I'm not surprised Google closes their eyes and ignores false positives, your answer only confirms that.

Post reply on HN