NY State Senate Bill 2023-S8390

Current Bill Status - In Senate Committee Codes Committee

Introduced
- In Committee Assembly
- In Committee Senate
- On Floor Calendar Assembly
- On Floor Calendar Senate
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
Delivered to Governor
Signed By Governor

Please enter your contact information

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

A valid email address is required.

Home address is used to determine the senate district in which you reside. Your support or opposition to this bill is then shared immediately with the senator who represents you.

Optional services from the NY State Senate:

Create an account. An account allows you to officially support or oppose key legislation, sign petitions with a single click, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Include a custom message for your Senator? (Optional)

Enter a message to your senator. Many New Yorkers use this to share the reasoning behind their support or opposition to the bill. Others might share a personal anecdote about how the bill would affect them or people they care about.

Actions

View Actions

	Assembly Actions - Lowercase Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Jan 26, 2024	referred to codes

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:: A8110
Current Committee:: Senate Codes
Law Section:: Criminal Procedure Law
Laws Affected:: Add §60.80, CP L; add §4551, CPLR

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Summary

Sets rules and procedures for the admissibility of evidence created or processed by artificial intelligence.

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S8390

SPONSOR: COONEY
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the criminal procedure law and the civil practice law
and rules, in relation to the admissibility of evidence created or proc-
essed by artificial intelligence

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

Relates to the admissibility of evidence created or processed by artifi-
cial intelligence.

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

60.80 (1),(2),(3),(4): Evidence 'created' versus 'processed' -- The
primary distinction between evidence that was created or processed is
the result of the system. If "new information" is generated from the AI,
then it was "created." If a "conclusion" was generated from the AI, then
it was "processed." "New information" is information that did not exist
prior to the Al's intervention, while a "conclusion" is an interpreta-

tion of the information that did exist.

60.80(5): "Reasonably deducible" -- There currently exist many forms of
evidence analysis which use AI systems, but only as a means to achieve
its ends more quickly. These would not fall under the standard set forth
in this bill because the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions
drawn, or information created by them, would not be substantially
compromised if AI was not used. Instead, the AI simply makes the work
more efficient.

60.80(6)(a): "The evidence is separate from, and not derived from, the
artificially created evidence." - The evidence must be supported by
something other than the artificially created evidence.

60.80(6) (b): The independent evidence must be admissible under the
existing rules of evidence.

60.80(6)(c): "The independent evidence bears a close and significant
relationship to the artificially created evidence in such a manner that
it reinforces or corroborates the information created from the arti-
ficially created evidence. -- Courts should only accept such evidence
which corroborates the evidence or reinforces information.  This inquiry
is highly fact specific and can vary depending on other evidence
presented.

60.80(7)(a): "The specific use case of the AI system must also be vali-
dated through rigorous scientific or technical testing, demonstrating
that it consistently produces accurate and reliable results in varied
environments." -- The accuracy and reliability of the specific use case
of the AI that is used in the case at hand can be determined by looking
at prior testing of the AI system. This testing should be done in varied
environments to ensure the highest probability of an accurate result
regardless of the environment. The level of accuracy should be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis. Courts should not get caught up on the
question of whether AI generated evidence should be admitted where the
evidence has little weight considering the weight of other evidence.

60.80(7)(b): "The AI has been subjected to testing or application in
environments that are similar or analogous to the specific context in
which it is being used in the proceeding and such testing or application
produced accurate and reliable results." - Courts must ask whether the
AI has been used in the way that it is being used in a similar or analo-
gous situation to the situation at hand. The "context" to which this
part refers is the domain or set of circumstances in which the AI system
is operating.

60.80(7)(c): "The AI has not been subjected to any variables that, based
on scientific or technical testing of the system, have a substantial
probability of causing a materially inaccurate or unreliable result. In
assessing the probability, the court shall consider the weight of the
artificially created evidence relative to other admitted evidence."
-This is similar to the previous element, but with a minor but important
difference. This element states that if we have knowledge of the fact
that the AI system produces inaccurate or unreliable results when
subjected to a certain variable, then the evidence should not be used.
So, even if the AI is generally accurate, and even if it has been tested
to be accurate in the given context, was a variable introduced that
would cause an inaccuracy?

60.80(8): Permits the courts to limit the disclosure of certain informa-
tion.

4551 - The same as the foregoing but as applied in the civil context.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are sophisticated technologies that
can independently analyze data to generate novel conclusions and new
information. As these technologies continue to advance in accuracy and
capability, their use cases also expand. One crucial aspect that society
must examine is Al's ability to create and process evidence for use in
criminal and civil court proceedings.

A common challenge in many AI systems is known as the "black box" prob-
lem. This complexity arises from the nature of Al's operation, partic-
ularly within neural networks. These networks function as a series of
interconnected processing units guiding the AI's operations and, in
turn, undertake a process to generate an output or prediction based on
given data.

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. 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.

This unique challenge posed by AI necessitates a reevaluation of how we
approach evidence, particularly when we can't be certain of the steps
involved in its creation or processing.

Therefore, this bill outlines the essential steps that must be undertak-
en to ensure that no individual is unjustly penalized in a criminal or
civil proceeding due to evidence created or processed by AI. It strives

to set a legal framework that both recognizes the potential of AI and
safeguards the principles of justice.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New bill

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

TBD

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeeding the
date on which it shall have become law.

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   8390
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                             January 26, 2024
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by  Sen.  COONEY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
   printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes
 
 AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law and the  civil  practice  law
   and  rules,  in  relation  to the admissibility of evidence created or
   processed by artificial intelligence
 
   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section  1.  The  criminal  procedure  law  is amended by adding a new
 section 60.80 to read as follows:
 § 60.80 RULES OF EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE  CREATED  OR  PROC-
           ESSED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
   1.  EVIDENCE  CREATED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
 SHALL NOT BE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING 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.
   2. EVIDENCE PROCESSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
 SHALL NOT BE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING UNLESS  THE
 PROPONENT  OF  THE  EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF
 THE SPECIFIC USE  OF  THE  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLIGENCE  IN  PROCESSING  THE
 EVIDENCE.
   3.  EVIDENCE  IS  CREATED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLI-
 GENCE WHERE THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCES  NEW  INFORMATION  FROM
 EXISTING  INFORMATION  NOT  PRESENT  IN OR REASONABLY DEDUCIBLE FROM THE
 EXISTING INFORMATION.
   4. EVIDENCE IS PROCESSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ARTIFICIAL  INTELLI-
 GENCE  WHERE THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCES A CONCLUSION BASED OFF
 OF ITS ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, OR TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING  INFORMA-
 TION WHERE SUCH CONCLUSION IS NOT REASONABLY DEDUCIBLE FROM THE EXISTING
 INFORMATION.
   5.  EVIDENCE IS NOT REASONABLY DEDUCIBLE FROM THE EXISTING INFORMATION
 WHERE THE RELIABILITY OR ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION CREATED OR  CONCLU-
 SION  DRAWN FROM THE EXISTING INFORMATION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPRO-
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.

                                                            LBD13089-01-3
 S. 8390                             2
 
 MISED WITHOUT THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE  AS  A  RESULT  OF  THE
 COMPLEXITY, UNCERTAINTY, OR SUBTLETY OF THE INFORMATION.
   6.  EVIDENCE  IS SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY INDEPENDENT AND ADMISSIBLE
 EVIDENCE WHERE:
   (A) THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE IS SEPARATE FROM, AND NOT  DERIVED  FROM,
 THE  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLIGENCE  THAT  GENERATED  THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED
 EVIDENCE;
   (B) THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE EXISTING RULES OF
 EVIDENCE;
   (C) THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE BEARS A CLOSE AND  SIGNIFICANT  RELATION-
 SHIP TO THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED EVIDENCE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT REIN-
 FORCES  OR  CORROBORATES  THE  INFORMATION CREATED FROM THE ARTIFICIALLY
 CREATED EVIDENCE.
   7. THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE  ARTIFICIAL
 INTELLIGENCE  IN CREATING OR PROCESSING THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT WHERE
 THE PROPONENT OF THE EVIDENCE HAS A QUALIFIED EXPERT  TESTIFY  AND  SUCH
 TESTIMONY IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT:
   (A) THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS BEEN VALIDATED
 THROUGH  RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL TESTING, DEMONSTRATING THAT IT
 CONSISTENTLY PRODUCES ACCURATE AND RELIABLE RESULTS IN  VARIED  ENVIRON-
 MENTS;
   (B)  THE  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLIGENCE  HAS  BEEN  SUBJECTED TO TESTING OR
 APPLICATION IN ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE SIMILAR OR ANALOGOUS TO THE SPECIF-
 IC CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS BEING USED IN THE PROCEEDING AND SUCH  TESTING
 OR APPLICATION PRODUCED ACCURATE AND RELIABLE RESULTS;
   (C)  THE  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLIGENCE HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO ANY VARI-
 ABLES THAT, BASED ON SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL TESTING OF THE SYSTEM, HAVE
 A SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY OF CAUSING A MATERIALLY INACCURATE OR  UNRELI-
 ABLE  RESULT. IN ASSESSING THE PROBABILITY, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE
 WEIGHT OF THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO  OTHER  ADMITTED
 EVIDENCE.
   8.  WHERE  EXPERT  TESTIMONY  WOULD  INCLUDE TRADE SECRETS, PRIVILEGED
 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, OR INFORMATION ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT  TECHNIQUES
 THAT, IF DISCLOSED, WOULD UNDULY COMPROMISE THEIR ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY
 USE  THEIR  SYSTEMS  FOR  THEIR  INTENDED  PURPOSE,  THE  COURT,  IN ITS
 DISCRETION, MAY IMPOSE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT SUCH INFORMATION.
   § 2. The civil practice law and rules  is  amended  by  adding  a  new
 section 4551 to read as follows:
   §  4551. RULES OF EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE CREATED OR PROC-
 ESSED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.  (A) EVIDENCE CREATED, IN WHOLE OR  IN
 PART,  BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MAY NOT BE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE IN A
 CIVIL PROCEEDING UNLESS THE EVIDENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY INDE-
 PENDENT AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE PROPONENT OF THE EVIDENCE ESTAB-
 LISHES THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF THE SPECIFIC USE OF  THE  ARTIFI-
 CIAL INTELLIGENCE IN CREATING THE EVIDENCE.
   (B)  EVIDENCE  PROCESSED,  IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLI-
 GENCE MAY NOT BE RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING UNLESS THE
 PROPONENT OF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THE RELIABILITY  AND  ACCURACY  OF
 THE  SPECIFIC  USE  OF  THE  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLIGENCE  IN PROCESSING THE
 EVIDENCE.
   (C) EVIDENCE IS CREATED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLI-
 GENCE  WHERE  THE  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCES NEW INFORMATION FROM
 EXISTING INFORMATION NOT PRESENT IN OR  REASONABLY  DEDUCIBLE  FROM  THE
 EXISTING INFORMATION.
   (D) EVIDENCE IS PROCESSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLI-
 GENCE  WHERE THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCES A CONCLUSION BASED OFF
 S. 8390                             3
 
 OF ITS ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, OR TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING  INFORMA-
 TION WHERE SUCH CONCLUSION IS NOT REASONABLY DEDUCIBLE FROM THE EXISTING
 INFORMATION.
   (E) EVIDENCE IS NOT REASONABLY DEDUCIBLE FROM THE EXISTING INFORMATION
 WHERE  THE RELIABILITY OR ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION CREATED OR CONCLU-
 SION DRAWN FROM THE EXISTING INFORMATION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY  COMPRO-
 MISED  WITHOUT  THE  USE  OF  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A RESULT OF THE
 COMPLEXITY, UNCERTAINTY, OR SUBTLETY OF THE INFORMATION.
   (F) EVIDENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORTED BY INDEPENDENT AND  ADMISSIBLE
 EVIDENCE WHERE:
   1.  THE  INDEPENDENT  EVIDENCE IS SEPARATE FROM, AND NOT DERIVED FROM,
 THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE  THAT  GENERATED  THE  ARTIFICIALLY  CREATED
 EVIDENCE;
   2.  THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE EXISTING RULES OF
 EVIDENCE;
   3. THE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE BEARS A CLOSE AND SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP
 TO THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED EVIDENCE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT REINFORCES
 OR CORROBORATES THE INFORMATION CREATED FROM  THE  ARTIFICIALLY  CREATED
 EVIDENCE.
   (G) THE RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE ARTIFICIAL
 INTELLIGENCE  IN CREATING OR PROCESSING THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT WHERE
 THE PROPONENT OF THE EVIDENCE HAS A QUALIFIED EXPERT  TESTIFY  AND  SUCH
 TESTIMONY IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT:
   1.  THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS BEEN VALIDATED
 THROUGH RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL TESTING, DEMONSTRATING THAT  IT
 CONSISTENTLY  PRODUCES  ACCURATE AND RELIABLE RESULTS IN VARIED ENVIRON-
 MENTS;
   2. THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TESTING OR APPLI-
 CATION IN ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE SIMILAR OR  ANALOGOUS  TO  THE  SPECIFIC
 CONTEXT  IN WHICH IT IS BEING USED IN THE PROCEEDING AND SUCH TESTING OR
 APPLICATION PRODUCED ACCURATE AND RELIABLE RESULTS;
   3. THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO ANY VARIABLES
 THAT, BASED ON SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL TESTING OF  THE  SYSTEM,  HAVE  A
 SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY OF CAUSING A MATERIALLY INACCURATE OR UNRELIABLE
 RESULT.  IN  ASSESSING  THE  PROBABILITY,  THE  COURT SHALL CONSIDER THE
 WEIGHT OF THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO  OTHER  ADMITTED
 EVIDENCE.
   (H)  WHERE  EXPERT  TESTIMONY  WOULD INCLUDE TRADE SECRETS, PRIVILEGED
 GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, OR INFORMATION ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT  TECHNIQUES
 THAT, IF DISCLOSED, WOULD UNDULY COMPROMISE THEIR ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY
 USE  THEIR  SYSTEMS  FOR  THEIR  INTENDED  PURPOSE,  THE  COURT,  IN ITS
 DISCRETION, MAY IMPOSE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT SUCH INFORMATION.
   § 3. This act shall take effect on the first of January next  succeed-
 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

Comments

Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.

Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Create an account. An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Senate Bill S8390

Sponsored By

Current Bill Status - In Senate Committee Codes Committee

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Details

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Summary

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Comments

Senate Bill S8390

Share this bill

Sponsored By

Jeremy A. Cooney

Current Bill Status - In Senate Committee Codes Committee

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Details

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Summary

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2023-S8390 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Comments