The research, conducted among 555 experts, was published at last week’s Bond Solon expert witness conference, in London. More than 70% thought experts should disclose the use of AI when preparing reports, and the overwhelming majority voted AI and the credibility of evidence the single biggest issue of the next three years.
Only 6% of respondents believed current regulation and guidance on the use of AI by experts is adequate.
Speaking at the conference, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, who co-chaired the Civil Justice Council working group on the ‘Use of AI for preparing court documents’, expanded on the group’s recommendation that use of AI be declared. This would only be required where AI tools have been used ‘to generate or influence the substantive content’ including where AI use ‘formed part of an expert’s methodology or substantive analysis’, rather than for administrative tasks, Joanna Smith J said.
The declaration would need to ‘provide sufficient information to facilitate effective scrutiny’ and include the methodology used, ‘confirmation as to the appropriateness of AI use for that purpose and, exceptionally, but not always, the tool that has been used’. In other words, disclosure is not necessary if AI is used for research or to improve efficiency and speed.
Joanna Smith J highlighted the danger of a lack of training in the AI tool used as well as risks such as hallucinations, confidentiality breaches and technical misunderstandings.
Finally, she suggested practical questions experts should bear in mind, including: do I have a proper record of how AI has been used? Regarding substantive content, Joanna Smith J suggested: would I be comfortable describing exactly how I used AI to a judge under oath?
