Thanks for this great write-up! I hadn't thought about AI's ability to deter animals from areas likely to be hit by natural disasters before.

Nice, this sounds excellent! I've been thinking about the implications of AI for mental health lately so was excited to see you've got an 'AI Mental Health Initiative' working group. Are you able to share any more about what that entails and how you're thinking about that at this stage? From my brief searches AI's potential for developing more effective medications, AI-boosted therapy techniques, etc. seems fairly under-discussed.

I'm thinking about writing something on AI's implications for mental healthcare - e.g., within 5-10 years should we expect to benefit from much more advanced (and side-effect-free) anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication, AI-boosted meditation and CBT techniques, neurological hardwiring, etc.? Could this end up being a net negative if this leads to people with access to these becoming much more complacent about the suffering of others? I've only done a very shallow dive into this so it would probably be very quick and scrappy 

Thanks for sharing Vasco! On the point about public support - sadly I don't think that Welfare Footprint's data will be enough to convince people about these kinds of reforms. I think welfare reforms have to almost immediately make intuitive sense for them to receive mainstream public support. E.g. organizations have been doing a great job trying to popularize the term 'Frankenchickens' as a way to make the welfare issues of broiler chicken breeding more salient, but that's still been a really heavy lift and comparing two different kinds of cages seems even harder.

Definitely agree this is important, but I also think we need to reframe the narrative of 'soulless alt proteins companies vs. hard-working farmers' to 'scrappy underdogs vs. huge animal ag corporations that are more like Amazon or Ford than the kinds of cute farms people imagine'. I also wonder how major job displacement from AI will play into this - maybe there will be less public concern about animal farmers losing their jobs if this is part of a general pattern that affects almost all industries? Not at all confident in that though. 

Thanks for sharing, agree with all these concerns. Another one I’m worried about is that these kinds of efforts don’t accurately relay what animals are trying to communicate and instead just tell us what we want to hear (like we're already seeing with misleading 'dog translation collars'), which could be used as further justification for their exploitation and neglect.

As well as Earth Species Project and Project CETI, there’s lots of tech funding set to come into the field: Google is working on technology for communication with dolphins and the major Chinese tech firm Baidu has filed a patent for animal-human communication technology, and we'll probably see lots of others following suit.  Seeking to slow down these efforts makes sense as an end goal, but as an intermediate goal we could at least try to get as many players in the field to sign up to something like these principles drafted by the More Than Human Life program at New York University (who Project CETI has partnered with). 

Hey, useful question! This is probably the strongest case I’ve seen, focused on the potential legal implications. But it still rests on the assumption that opening the door for legal recognition of certain charismatic species (like whales) will spill over to other species that people are primed to disregard (like chickens), which definitely isn’t a given. If you’ve not already seen it, the MOTH Project at NYU has also come up with a list of principles that seem like a useful guide for anyone doing work in this space.

On the empathy argument: In theory it could still be more persuasive, and harder for people to ignore, if animals were able to more directly communicate feelings of pain, stress, isolation, etc. And this could also reinforce people’s understanding of animals as individuals if different animals express different emotions in similar situations, which in theory could improve their empathy towards them. But yeah, this depends on a lot of things going right: e.g., the technology accurately relaying animals’ communications, animals coming across as complex/sympathetic, etc., and this being relayed by credible people to key audiences in a persuasive way. There’s likely to be a lot of misleading noise in this area as well - maybe you’ll get some big industry players commissioning studies that ‘translate’ animals’ communications in humane-washing ways. And on top of the points you raised, using this kind of tech on e.g. farmed chickens will give a skewed perspective on the intelligence of a typical chicken, given that farmed meat chickens are killed at a few weeks old so you’d be listening to the equivalent of toddlers who’ve been raised in abnormal conditions that probably stifle normal development.

Broader AI uses for understanding animals better could still be really useful (e.g. by enabling more sophisticated bio-sensors and tracking devices, and the software required to process and interpret all the resulting data), so it would be helpful to pivot people more to thinking about all the messier ways that AI could help us understand animals’ lives on their own terms rather than looking for a clean animal-to-human translation. Mal Graham has written about some of the potential applications in this post.

Great, thanks Tristan! That's really good to hear, and noted re. the formatting. And yes, we definitely hope that other researchers will build on this and challenge us so that we can continually improve it.

Thanks David! 

• We trialled a few formats, including Notion, and Google Docs was overall the easiest overall for reading and updating, but agree the in-built menu bar is a bit unwieldy. We also considered adding a comparison table but decided not to as distilling the content for each intervention to that extent ended up being unhelpfully reductive. We'll consider other ways to make this easier to navigate though, thanks for flagging!
• Yeah, to keep the document tidy and help us moderate comments then we invite people to directly email me ([email protected]) or Alina Salmen ([email protected]) with feedback or to request comment access, rather than us enabling comment access automatically.
• Thanks for noting all the cross-over with The Unjournal, that's great! I've added those evaluations to our list of studies to incorporate when we next update this.

Hey Benny, thanks for the thoughts! 

Totally agree on your first point. I guess you could divide positive use cases up into a few different categories:

• In some cases, like alt proteins, there are already people/companies intentionally trying to create less exploitative systems with reasonable chance of success, and AI will help them achieve that.
• In others, like most alternatives to animal testing methods or many forms of Precision Livestock Farming, AI enables methods that are cheaper, more effective, etc., so those methods will probably  end up getting adopted and incidentally helping animals in the process.
• But for many other areas, the positive use cases rely on getting governments, public, industry etc. to care about animals. If we think that we're likely to see transformative AI fairly soon, it probably makes sense to specifically target those kind of MCE efforts at the people who will have most say over AI systems, like governments and AI companies. I've explored that a bit in another post.

On your second point: thanks, that's a good point and I think your suggestion is probably more accurate!