However, any changes to the federal rules of evidence would take years to be finalized and would need approval from various committees and the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there is a race to develop technological solutions to detect fake content or add digital watermarks to it. However, current AI-detection tools have proven unreliable, and there are concerns about the accessibility of these tools, particularly for litigants in family courts who may not have the financial resources to hire expert witnesses.
Key takeaways:
- Superior court judges are increasingly concerned about the ability of courts to distinguish authentic material from deepfakes, as generative AI tools become more accessible and convincing.
- Legal scholars are proposing changes to rules that have governed court evidence in the U.S. for 50 years, shifting the burden of determining authenticity away from juries and placing more responsibility on judges.
- Proposals include requiring a forensic expert’s opinion on the authenticity of contested evidence and making the party alleging a deepfake responsible for the cost of the forensic expert.
- Changes to the federal rules of evidence would take years to be finalized and would need approval from various committees and the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the proliferation of deepfakes presents a significant challenge, particularly in cases where litigants lack the resources to hire expert witnesses.