NY Bill Proposes New Admissibility Rules For AI Evidence

This article has been saved to your Favorites!
As legal experts continue to warn of artificial intelligence's potential impact on courtrooms, a New York lawmaker and intellectual property attorney has introduced a bill intended to set rules for the admissibility of evidence "created or processed" by artificial intelligence.

AI systems have been used to analyze evidence for years now. But last week's proposal A08110, sponsored by Assemblymember Clyde Vanel, D-Queens, does not seek to govern evidence analysis that uses those systems only to make the work more efficient.

Instead, the bill targets AI that generates new information or comes to conclusions. This type of evidence would have to be "substantially supported" by independent evidence that must, among other things, be admissible and bear resemblance to the AI evidence, according to the bill

Vanel did not immediately respond to Law360 Pulse's request for comment Wednesday.

A memo for proposal A08110 says the bill is designed to combat what is often referred to as a black box problem.

"The crux of the black box problem is that no one, not even the AI's programmers, can precisely understand how the AI reaches its conclusions from the data," the memo reads.

"This ambiguity introduces an issue with evidence created or processed entirely or partially by AI; we cannot discern how the AI arrived at a specific conclusion. However, through rigorous testing, we can verify whether those conclusions are accurate and reliable."

Experts have long been sounding the alarm about the impact new AI technologies could have in the courtroom. Some scholars have suggested that AI-generated "deepfakes" could be passed off as authentic evidence or that admissible evidence could be alleged to be AI-generated. And a study published in the Duke Law & Technology Review earlier this year warned that cases involving AI "will be coming your way much sooner than you think."

"The intent of the law is noble and essential — ensuring AI does not threaten the reliability of evidence," Danny Tobey, chair of DLA Piper's AI practice, told Law360 Pulse on Wednesday. "I do worry about the difficulty of implementation in its current form.  The law tees up what may be challenging distinctions, like whether AI is creating 'new information' or merely 'transforming' existing information — that could portend years of litigation to sort through."

–Additional reporting by Sarah Martinson and Emily Sawicki. Editing by Amy French.

Update: This story has been updated with comments from Danny Tobey.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the bill's Assembly number. The error has been corrected.


For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

×

Law360

Law360 Law360 UK Law360 Tax Authority Law360 Employment Authority Law360 Insurance Authority Law360 Real Estate Authority Law360 Healthcare Authority Law360 Bankruptcy Authority

Rankings

NEWLeaderboard Analytics Social Impact Leaders Prestige Leaders Pulse Leaderboard Women in Law Report Law360 400 Diversity Snapshot Rising Stars Summer Associates

National Sections

Modern Lawyer Courts Daily Litigation In-House Mid-Law Legal Tech Small Law Insights

Regional Sections

California Pulse Connecticut Pulse DC Pulse Delaware Pulse Florida Pulse Georgia Pulse New Jersey Pulse New York Pulse Pennsylvania Pulse Texas Pulse

Site Menu

Subscribe Advanced Search About Contact