The new reform is designed to minimize the risk that AI poses to the legal sphere.
In the US capital, Washington, an interesting meeting of the federal judicial board was recently held, dedicated to the problems of using evidence generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings.
Experts discussed the risks of using AI to create manipulative images and videos, including "deepfake" technology, which could disrupt the course of legal proceedings.
The Council of the Advisory Committee on Rules for the Provision of Forensic Evidence reviewed the opportunities and challenges associated with artificial intelligence in the legal field. The published 358-page agenda defined a deepfake as "an unreliable audio-visual presentation created by software tools using artificial intelligence."
The judges expressed skepticism about the urgency of this problem, given that so far there have been few cases where judges have actually had to exclude generated evidence. However, the view was expressed that it was necessary to adapt the existing rules to the new challenges that the rapid progress in the field of artificial intelligence poses to the judicial system.
The meeting discussed proposals to change the rules, including a new rule 901 (c), which deals with the verification of the authenticity of potentially fabricated or altered electronic evidence: "If a party challenging the authenticity of computer or other electronic evidence demonstrates to the court that it is likely to be either fabricated or modified in whole or in part, such evidence is considered to be acceptable only if its evidentiary value exceeds its negative impact on the party disputing the evidence."
It was also proposed to apply the same reliability requirements to machine-generated evidence as to the testimony of human experts.
While the final changes to the rules have not yet been adopted, and the process continues, however, what is happening indicates the first steps in adapting the American judicial system to a new class of media technologies.
Other consequences of using AI in legal practice include very awkward moments for lawyers in court proceedings. For example, last year, a US lawyer apologized to a judge for using ChatGPT to prepare court documents that erroneously listed non-existent cases.
In the US capital, Washington, an interesting meeting of the federal judicial board was recently held, dedicated to the problems of using evidence generated by artificial intelligence in court proceedings.
Experts discussed the risks of using AI to create manipulative images and videos, including "deepfake" technology, which could disrupt the course of legal proceedings.
The Council of the Advisory Committee on Rules for the Provision of Forensic Evidence reviewed the opportunities and challenges associated with artificial intelligence in the legal field. The published 358-page agenda defined a deepfake as "an unreliable audio-visual presentation created by software tools using artificial intelligence."
The judges expressed skepticism about the urgency of this problem, given that so far there have been few cases where judges have actually had to exclude generated evidence. However, the view was expressed that it was necessary to adapt the existing rules to the new challenges that the rapid progress in the field of artificial intelligence poses to the judicial system.
The meeting discussed proposals to change the rules, including a new rule 901 (c), which deals with the verification of the authenticity of potentially fabricated or altered electronic evidence: "If a party challenging the authenticity of computer or other electronic evidence demonstrates to the court that it is likely to be either fabricated or modified in whole or in part, such evidence is considered to be acceptable only if its evidentiary value exceeds its negative impact on the party disputing the evidence."
It was also proposed to apply the same reliability requirements to machine-generated evidence as to the testimony of human experts.
While the final changes to the rules have not yet been adopted, and the process continues, however, what is happening indicates the first steps in adapting the American judicial system to a new class of media technologies.
Other consequences of using AI in legal practice include very awkward moments for lawyers in court proceedings. For example, last year, a US lawyer apologized to a judge for using ChatGPT to prepare court documents that erroneously listed non-existent cases.
