SF5303

Purpose

This bill would require human oversight by a qualified court reporter when AI-based tools are used to create official verbatim court records. It aims to ensure that AI-generated transcripts or recordings accurately reflect what was said and the context of court proceedings, and to prevent AI outputs from being the sole basis for official records.

Key Definitions

• artificial intelligence-based tool: software or systems that use AI (including machine learning, natural language processing, large language models) to generate, analyze, or transcribe data for creating official court records.
• official verbatim court record: the official transcript or recording of court proceedings required by statute and court rules.
• qualified court reporter: a competent stenographer meeting the Supreme Court’s minimum qualifications.
• court: the Minnesota Supreme Court, district courts, and appellate courts that maintain official verbatim records.

Main Provisions

• Human Oversight Requirement

  • AI-generated recommendations, predictions, or outputs cannot be the sole basis for creating the official verbatim court record.
  • Any AI tool used must operate with human oversight by a qualified court reporter.
  • Oversight includes real-time monitoring or post-process review to ensure accuracy and completeness, verification that the AI output verbatim reflects spoken words, context, and intent, and certification by the court reporter that the record complies with laws and standards.

• Policies and Oversight Standards

  • The Supreme Court must establish or maintain policies requiring human oversight by qualified court reporters before AI tools are used to create official records.

• Discrepancy Resolution

  • If there is any discrepancy between the AI-generated output and the human-verified official record, the human-verified record is the official record.

• Certification and Documentation

  • Official records produced with AI must include a certification by a qualified court reporter confirming accuracy, the oversight performed, and the name and type of AI tool used.
  • Courts must keep documentation of the oversight process, including who supervised it and the methods used to verify AI output, for a period aligned with existing record retention policies (section 138.17) or as court rules specify.

• Exceptions

  • The requirements do not apply to unofficial recordings or transcripts used for purposes other than the official record, provided they are clearly labeled as unofficial and not submitted as part of the official record.

Significance and Changes to Law

• New requirements to add human oversight and verification for AI-assisted official court records.
• Creates a formal certification process by a court reporter and mandates documentation of oversight.
• Establishes priority for human-verified records in case of any AI-related discrepancy.
• Requires the Supreme Court to set policies governing this oversight before AI tools can be used to assist in creating official records.
• Clarifies scope by excluding unofficial recordings from these requirements if clearly labeled.

Practical Impact

• Court proceedings that use AI for transcription or recording will need to involve a qualified court reporter in the process.
• Courts must implement policies and maintain records showing how AI outputs were overseen and verified.
• The official record will be protected from potential AI errors through mandatory human review and clear certification.

Relevant Terms - artificial intelligence-based tool - official verbatim court record - qualified court reporter - human oversight - real-time monitoring - postprocess review - verification - certification - discrepancy - court rules - record retention policies - section 138.17 - Minnesota Statutes - Supreme Court - unofficial recordings