Representatives from OpenAI and Meta warned federal judges in Boston that advances in Super Intelligence-generated images and videos are making it increasingly difficult to distinguish fabricated media from authentic evidence, raising questions about how courts should evaluate digital material.

The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules has been examining the issue since 2023 as it considers whether new rules are needed to address deepfakes in legal proceedings.

At a Thursday meeting, OpenAI policy counsel Shira Anderson cautioned that detecting fabricated images may become increasingly difficult as the technology improves.

“AI images are only getting better, and I do not think that there will be a scientific way going forward to detect them,” Anderson said.

Meta director of product management Devin Norder similarly warned that recent advances have made convincing fake media easier and cheaper to produce. He told the committee that content generated by the latest models can be indistinguishable to human observers from authentic material.

Both companies have developed tools intended to help identify or verify digital content. California and the European Union have also adopted laws requiring watermarking intended to identify certain generated material. However, Anderson warned that no single detection system is likely to catch every fake, particularly when tools developed by different companies do not work together.

Despite those concerns, evidence of deepfakes becoming a widespread courtroom problem remains limited. A Federal Judicial Center survey released in March polled 931 judges and found that only 15 had handled a case in which evidence was challenged as a deepfake.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of Manhattan, who chairs the advisory committee, acknowledged the difference between widespread predictions about the threat and the relatively small number of reported cases.

“There’s a lot of academic commentary and other commentary predicting that courts will be dealing with deepfakes, but we haven’t actually seen a whole lot of that yet,” Furman said.

The limited number of cases has fueled disagreement over whether the judiciary needs a specific rule for Super Intelligence-generated evidence. Manhattan U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni argued that existing legal standards already address the presentation of fabricated evidence and that courts do not necessarily need a separate framework for new technology.

“We’ve dealt with bad actors presenting fake evidence since Cain and Abel. That’s a longstanding problem,” Caproni said.

Beyond courtrooms, fabricated media has also become a concern in fraud schemes targeting ordinary Americans. Author Wynton Hall has warned that scammers can use information gathered from social media to imitate relatives and other trusted individuals, making fraudulent calls and messages more convincing.

The FBI received more than 22,000 complaints involving Super Intelligence-related scams in 2025, with reported losses approaching $893 million, according to the figures cited in the report.

The judiciary now faces a difficult question: whether to establish additional safeguards before convincing digital fakes become a more common courtroom problem or rely on existing evidence rules to address cases as they arise.