<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>fleitz</author><text>I&apos;ve written software to replace this type of thing, in my case it was classifying communications as to whether they were attorney-client privileged or not. It has to be cheaper, it was about a month of my time. And about a week working with a high priced lawyer to write the ruleset and confirm it caught everything and was excluding all the right stuff. With that software they&apos;ve essentially got their best lawyer going through every piece of communication.&lt;p&gt;It has to be cheaper, I can&apos;t imaging paying someone with a law degree to go through all of that. And now their lawyers are freed up to do something more useful.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>stretchwithme</author><text>“Over the long run we find things for people to do. The harder question is, does changing technology always lead to better jobs? The answer is no.”&lt;p&gt;Overall, I have to disagree.  Letting machines do all the mind-numbingly boring work leaves the rest for human beings.  And we pay a lot less for the final products, leaving resources for new jobs, which will also have the boring parts automated.&lt;p&gt;Disagree?  Hire a hundred people to do all your drudgery.  Then pretend you&apos;re paying them hardly anything.  I submit your life will suck less.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html</url></story>