The next big (scary) idea
What happens when lawyers can be replaced by computers? Downing Street policy wonks want to know.
By Rafael Behr Published 21 June 2012 15:53
There is an interesting piece in the latest edition of the Atlantic.
Interesting, that is, in a way that looks at first glance eye-numbingly boring. It is about computer automation in the legal world. (It is based on an article on the same topic that appeared in the Wall Street Journal but that one is behind a paywall.)
The essence is that machines are now getting very good at scanning long documents and picking out salient bits of information, imitating a cognitive skill traditionally thought to be unique to humans. In fact, computers are probably better at it than people (or will be soon enough) precisely because they don’t have eyes or minds to be numbed by repetitive tasks. They have tireless algorithms.
That is interesting enough in a geeky way, but it caught my eye because, by coincidence, this very concept was brought to my attention recently by a senior adviser in Downing Street. No, that doesn’t mean the government is planning to replace all lawyers with computers by 2015. The subject came up in the context of complex structural challenges facing the economy. There has already been much discussion of the hollowing out of low and semi-skilled manufacturing jobs – a consequence, partly at least, of out-sourcing and automation. That creates a structural gap in the labour market that translates into drastically diminished employment prospects for young people with few skills. That in turn generates deep social problems.
But what happens when the same dynamic creeps up the skills ladder? What are the social and political consequences when white-collar, middle class jobs are increasingly outsourced or done by computers? Plenty of professionals who thought they were immune to the labour market pressures exerted by globalisation will suddenly start to feel very insecure. This is a change that could make itself felt easily within a decade. (That challenge, by the way, features in the writing of Tyler Cowen, a US economist and author of The Great Stagnation, who is much admired in the deep end of the Downing Street policy pool.) The original Luddites were, of course, reacting against the threat of automation in the workplace.
So if you haven’t heard much about the structural economic challenge posed by the next generation of automation - someone has probably already called it Automation 2.0 - you soon will.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















8 comments
Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji
anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3sola
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet
if computers can now scan long documents and find the useful bits in them it won't, then, be long before the political class can be replaced by computers.
in which case the only people left with jobs will be the person serving in macdonalds, and people who make hand made pottery.
and then we can have elections where we vote for the computer programme we want, so that those of us who genuinely want to help the less well off can chose a computer that prioritises their needs over those of bankers, and party donors.
and not only that, they won't lie.
sounds good to me.
Automation and technological advancement in themselves are not bad it's only when we try to automate a function when the technology isn't up to scratch or fail to share the benefits.
Personally if technology equalised the levels of justice people with high paid lawyers vs the average guy could get then I think it's great.
We should be thinking how to take advantage of new technology to create new opportunities and a more fulfilling society not scared of it.
Perhaps we face the prospect of unemployed former members of the cabinet roaming the streets and creating mayhem. Much of what they do on a day-to-day basis could surely be done by one these machines. It would save a small fortune and the stark prospect of unemployment might concentrate a few minds on the reality of the expression "we're all in it together"!
Tyler Cowen is an ultra-right wing, supply side, Chicago School idiot.
He's not actually an economist, nor is he a whore who smears himself in excrement for the amusement of the super-rich. He's somewhere between the two.
..We might end up with too much responsibility as ordinary members of the public. Unless of course workers on the front line stop wielding worst case scenarios at us, or fixing our communications systems as if it's in order to detract the ordinary member of the public from telling them what's really happening and what needs sorting out.
We've already got freedom of information and all these wonderful web-sites providing a home for the regulators, homes where members of the public are free to look and peruse the latest information about the best practice. It's all about competition now.
We become a nation selling sandwiches to each other. Simples!