Cloud Hosting

The New York Assembly now has before it A8110, a bill that precludes admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings that is created in whole or in part by artificial intelligence, unless the evidence is substantially supported by independent and admissible evidence and the proponent of the evidence establishes the reliability and accuracy of the specific use of the artificial intelligence in creating the evidence. The bill further precludes evidence that is processed unless reliability and accuracy of the particular uses of the AI is established. The bill then proceeds to define how to determine these components. It further address amending the rules of evidence as applicable to civil proceedings, requiring AI-created and AI-processed evidence to be subject to the same standards as for criminal proceedings.

The current rules of evidence provide means for authenticating other technologically created evidence, such as photographs. For example, the North Dakota Supreme Court in a 2015 case admitted into evidence a photograph that was cropped and resized, and allowed such a manipulated photograph based on expert testimony of someone with knowledge of how the manipulation (i.e., altering) of the image was done. In another case, the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2004 permitted a manipulated photograph of a bite mark on a victim, corroborated by the testimony of the witness who performed the enhancement.

See the original post:

Address the Issue of AI-Generated Evidence | New Jersey Law Journal - Law.com