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

71–80 of 102 posts

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

#71

Post by Erik816 »

adrenalinelol wrote: post #70

While this article seems to be a bit light on specifics, the automation of most legal practices is something that ML will have a great affect on in the near future (imo). Junior associates get paid insane salaries to do very meaningless grunt-work at biglaw firms. Those who aren't on track to become partners, are essentially burning the firms' resources, thus there exists an big incentive to automate the work.

Junior associates are not burning the firm's resources. They are the firm's resources. They generate billable hours, which is how the partners make money. Which is why most of the legal profession is much slower to replace them than you might think.

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

#72

Post by Erik816 »

minikites wrote: post #15
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.

The edge cases for people under such laws are much more serious than most computer edge cases.

The edge cases are also exactly when lawyers get involved. If the law is clear, there's not much work for a lawyer to do (you plead guilty, you settle the case, you don't sue in the first place, etc.). Dealing with ambiguity is the main skill of a lawyer.

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

#73

Post by dreamfactory2 »

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.

This is why GDRP is bringing in a right to human review of automated decisions (for EU citizens)

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

#74

Post by crowbahr »

Just1689 wrote: post #34
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…

> I think there will be a role emerging within Enterprises, (sort of like an "insurance broker" who finds the best coverage options among a sea of choices), that will be responsible for surveying new technologies that could potentially help the firm, and running pilot programs to see how they potentially help make the org. more efficient or more competitive. You have just described my role. We're calling ourselves Em…

Very cool. I was just thinking about this yesterday. It'd be really interesting to have the roll of researching the upcoming techs and trying to see how they'd integrate. Are you a start up or do you work for a larger corporation?

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

#75

Post by tehlike »

raverbashing wrote: post #30
tehlike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am in ads, and occasionally deal with ad fraud. So i cannot speak what they do for other products. I don't think you should derive any meaning from what I say.

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

#76

Post by tehlike »

smcl wrote: post #38
tehlike wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

definitely google is not known for super good customer service, I will give you that.

It's actually much worse than "not known for super good customer service", Google are known for awful customer service and not just for the "free" tier. I appreciate that as your employer Google means something different to you, and you certainly shouldn't be expected to answer on their behalf ... but lets not kid ourselves here

When I write here, i try to write it on my own. Being a google employee doesn't have any bearing on what I think about google products. I don't use many google products, because there are better ones out there. I think that should be the perspective when you read most comments here.

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

#77

Post by skissane »

walterbell wrote: post #69
__jal wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paypal does naive keyword matching. I know this, because I used the word 'aleph' in the comments field when sending someone money, because that word was in the name of the thing I was buying. Turns out, there is some terror group with the same word in their name. Also turns out, PP's "sophisticated" fraud detection will hold a payment for nearly a month, when a human looking at the transaction is going to figure out…

Is there a open source github-hosted file with keywords that can be screened by a browser plugin?

PayPal is likely using these US government lists: http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search

Companies like PayPal aren't doing this because they honestly believe it will catch terrorism. They are doing this because the US government tells them to, and they risk onerous penalties for non-compliance.

"Aleph" is on that list as an alias of Aum Shinrikyo, the cult responsible for the Japanese subway Sarin attack in 1995.

These regulations are somewhat pointless in that the list is public so anyone on the list can easily find out the fact they are on it and use an alias / front company / etc which isn't – so they only catch the truly incompetent terrorist funder/sanctions-buster/etc. But I don't think we can blame companies like PayPal for the existence of government regulations like this–I'm not aware that PayPal, or any other major corporation, has lobbied for these regulations to exist–although if PayPal take a month to remedy a false positive, that is unacceptably slow and it is fair to criticise them for that.

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

#78

Post by mschuster91 »

adamqureshi wrote: post #11
ams6110 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a world where if your contract does not meet with the approval of the computer, you are screwed with no recourse just like you are when Paypal decides to freeze your account because one of their algos detected "fraud"

it happ to me. I called them. they said there is nothing you or your buyer did / can do. When i asked PP what the heck is it? they said to me: "Concentrated buyer exposure" I got the buyer on the phone with PP and me. PP said only option is for me to refund buyer then be paid outside PP OR wait for 90 days then i can access my money. It was the first time this ever happ to me, i set up stripe the very next day and am…

I guess this is due to a combination of multiple factors:

- your average of PP transfer amount per transaction is fairly low

- that single buyer / transaction was way over the usual average, possibly in the five-figures range

- the buyer paid PP with a credit card

With the last item, it begins to make sense: the dispution timeframe is 90 days (per FTC, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-...). Paypal might be considering a possible dispute in small amounts (maybe 100$) as "chump change" but doesn't want to be on the hook for getting 10k $ back from the seller if the buyer wants to do a dispute.

If I were a one-man-payment broker, I would do exactly the same. No way I'd accept such a liability, no matter how big or reliable your business is - it's not you who is the risk, it's the buyer who is a direct risk to my business because I'm at the interface with the CC issuing bank which will hit me with a negative 10k$ balance and lawyer fees to resolve the matter and get my account balanced.

But, thank the heavens, I live in Germany where we have way more transactions done using SEPA direct transfer (online direct payment, next to impossible to revoke except for technical errors or fraud, and even if it's only possible in 10 days) or SEPA debit, which does have revocations too, but unlike with CCs, the issuer banks usually punish the customer harshly for wrongful revocations.

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

#79

Post by smcl »

tehlike wrote: post #76
smcl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually much worse than "not known for super good customer service", Google are known for awful customer service and not just for the "free" tier. I appreciate that as your employer Google means something different to you, and you certainly shouldn't be expected to answer on their behalf ... but lets not kid ourselves here

When I write here, i try to write it on my own. Being a google employee doesn't have any bearing on what I think about google products. I don't use many google products, because there are better ones out there. I think that should be the perspective when you read most comments here.

Sure thing - I just didn't want to sound like I was saying "as a Googler this is YOUR problem" that's all :)
Post reply on HN