Tue. Apr 23rd, 2024
ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.
 

By Greg Buckles

Extract:  So here are my Top Ten Reasons Why NOT [To Use] PC-TAR:

  1. Perception that PC-TAR costs front load the discovery cost for matters that WILL settle before trial.
  2. High resistance to analytic upcharges. Have to justify them on every matter, so go with path of least resistance.
  3. Complexity of systems and fear that counsel will not be able to defend what they do not understand.
  4. Customers on information overload. Marketing fatigue and growing customer indifference.
  5. Perception that PC-TAR reinforces known relevant selection and misses unknown/new documents.
  6. Rumors of SEC/DOJ in some areas fighting PC-TAR proposals.
  7. Realization that 95-99% recall in PC-TAR training will result in 300-500% production size. Exposure of large volumes of non-relevant ESI a serious concern for companies facing serial plaintiffs that are on fishing expeditions.
  8. Mature corporate customers already cull and optimize during collection or processing. If they can achieve substantial savings prioritizing/clustering review sets, why pay for actual PC-TAR analytics?
  9. Counsel does not want to operate PC-TAR systems. Wants Litsupport or provider to run it.
  10. PC-TAR takes money from the firm. Takes away associate jobs.

Do I believe that most of these market perceptions are true. No, I do not. However, they all contribute to the slow adoption rates for actual use of machine learning technology in traditional discovery review for production.

 

Have a Request?

If you have information or offering requests that you would like to ask us about, please let us know, and we will make our response to you a priority.

ComplexDiscovery OÜ is a highly recognized digital publication focused on providing detailed insights into the fields of cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery. Based in Estonia, a hub for digital innovation, ComplexDiscovery OÜ upholds rigorous standards in journalistic integrity, delivering nuanced analyses of global trends, technology advancements, and the eDiscovery sector. The publication expertly connects intricate legal technology issues with the broader narrative of international business and current events, offering its readership invaluable insights for informed decision-making.

For the latest in law, technology, and business, visit ComplexDiscovery.com.

 

Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Model Use

ComplexDiscovery OÜ recognizes the value of GAI and LLM tools in streamlining content creation processes and enhancing the overall quality of its research, writing, and editing efforts. To this end, ComplexDiscovery OÜ regularly employs GAI tools, including ChatGPT, Claude, Midjourney, and DALL-E, to assist, augment, and accelerate the development and publication of both new and revised content in posts and pages published (initiated in late 2022).

ComplexDiscovery also provides a ChatGPT-powered AI article assistant for its users. This feature leverages LLM capabilities to generate relevant and valuable insights related to specific page and post content published on ComplexDiscovery.com. By offering this AI-driven service, ComplexDiscovery OÜ aims to create a more interactive and engaging experience for its users, while highlighting the importance of responsible and ethical use of GAI and LLM technologies.