A federal judicial panel advanced a proposal on Friday to regulate the introduction of artificial intelligence-generated evidence at trial, with judges expressing a need to swiftly get feedback from the public and lawyers on the draft rule to get ahead of a rapidly evolving technology.
The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules in Washington, D.C., voted 8-1 in favor of seeking public comment on a draft rule designed to ensure evidence produced by generative AI technology meets the same reliability standards as evidence from a human expert witness.
wwarnout on
I would be in favor of a regulation that prohibited all AI-generated evidence.
GraduallyCthulhu on
AI-*generated* evidence?
By ‘regulated’, I hope they mean ‘out of existence’?
ledewde__ on
I see the play for Luigi. Given the high-profileness of his actions, it stands to reason for his defense to call into question any video evidence released to the public as tampered-with AI slop.
4 Comments
From the article
A federal judicial panel advanced a proposal on Friday to regulate the introduction of artificial intelligence-generated evidence at trial, with judges expressing a need to swiftly get feedback from the public and lawyers on the draft rule to get ahead of a rapidly evolving technology.
The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules in Washington, D.C., voted 8-1 in favor of seeking public comment on a draft rule designed to ensure evidence produced by generative AI technology meets the same reliability standards as evidence from a human expert witness.
I would be in favor of a regulation that prohibited all AI-generated evidence.
AI-*generated* evidence?
By ‘regulated’, I hope they mean ‘out of existence’?
I see the play for Luigi. Given the high-profileness of his actions, it stands to reason for his defense to call into question any video evidence released to the public as tampered-with AI slop.
He’ll go free.