Photo credit: phys.org
The expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised alarms regarding its possible negative impact on both humans and animals. As technology continues to evolve, so does its potential for causing harm to various forms of life.
A significant policy initiative in Australia provides a platform to tackle these concerns. The federal government has pledged A$5 million to revitalize the previously lapsed Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, with consultations underway and an expected completion date set for 2027.
Although AI is not a primary emphasis of this review, its implications cannot be overlooked. Given the Australian public’s strong regard for animal welfare, integrating AI considerations into the strategy could better shield animals from potential risks, whether in domestic settings, agriculture, or natural habitats.
Unaddressed Risks of AI to Animals
Today’s advanced computer systems exhibit capabilities that allow them to execute intricate tasks with remarkable precision, indicating a degree of “artificial intelligence“.
While the advancements in AI are exhilarating, they are also fraught with peril. Human-centered warnings about AI range from privacy invasions to broader existential threats, prompting a race among policy-makers across the European Union, the United States, and Australia to formulate regulations that ensure responsible AI use. Unfortunately, the focus of these regulations predominantly centers on human protection.
Australia is now presented with an opportunity to extend this protective umbrella to animals.
The preceding Animal Welfare Strategy concluded in 2014 and its revival aims to establish a unified national approach to animal welfare. Current review documents, however, suggest that AI has not been adequately incorporated into this framework. This oversight is significant, warranting a re-evaluation of priorities.
AI’s Dual Impact on Animals
AI applications are multifaceted, with many elements directly benefiting animal welfare, particularly in fields like veterinary science. For instance, AI could enhance the accuracy of reading X-rays for pet owners.
Additionally, AI technologies are being designed to identify pain levels in both cats and dogs. While this has the potential to improve pain management, inaccuracies could lead to misdiagnoses, either overstating or overlooking an animal’s distress.
AI tools also hold promise in decoding animal communication, enhancing our comprehension of various species’ needs, such as interpreting whale songs. Furthermore, AI has informed research regarding optimal trees and structures for avian habitats.
However, the darker side of AI usage raises alarming prospects for animal welfare. Criminals may exploit AI tools for tracking endangered species, jeopardizing wildlife populations. Furthermore, AI-algorithms prevalent on social media platforms have been shown to facilitate connections among criminal organizations engaged in wildlife trafficking.
AI is also not immune to biases that affect human perspectives. AI chatbots can unintentionally reinforce negative stereotypes about animals, potentially framing them simply as hunting targets or food. For instance, there are proposals to use AI to differentiate between domestic cats and native wildlife, with plans to eliminate the former. Yet, existing AI image recognition tools lack the necessary accuracy for reliable species identification, often biased towards North American data.
AI algorithms frequently prioritize sensational content, which can result in the proliferation of animal cruelty material across various platforms. Notably, YouTube has come under scrutiny for hosting distressing videos depicting animal abuse.
In some cases, AI technologies are utilized in animal experimentation, raising ethical concerns. For example, Neuralink, founded by Elon Musk, faced criticism over accusations of hastily conducted experiments that harmed monkeys.
Experts warn that overreliance on AI could create a disconnect between humans and animals, reducing our empathy and awareness regarding their welfare. One troubling future scenario involves AI-operated farms where automated systems are responsible for animal care, potentially diminishing human engagement with the animals’ needs.
Regulatory Shortcomings Persist
Australia’s current legislative framework governing animal welfare remains inadequate and fails to effectively prevent existing cruelty issues. For example, regulations permit the confinement of animals in distressingly cramped quarters, such as battery cages for chickens and sow stalls for pigs. Invasive and painful procedures—like mulesing, tail docking, and beak trimming—can be legally performed without administering pain relief.
Historically, it is often public outcry that compels regulatory changes, pushing governments to curtail widely criticized practices, such as the live export of sheep by sea.
This situation amplifies the urgency for reform, especially in light of AI’s potential to exacerbate current animal welfare issues or introduce new challenges.
Globally, various governments are beginning to recognize the necessity of reform. The United Kingdom’s online safety legislation mandates social media companies to actively monitor and eliminate illegal animal cruelty content. Similarly, in Brazil, Meta was penalized for failing to remove illegal wildlife trading posts.
The EU’s AI Act takes a tentative first step towards acknowledging how AI impacts the ecosystems we share with animals, advocating for the AI industry to monitor and minimize its environmental footprint. These efforts can significantly benefit both animal and human health.
The ongoing revisions of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy offer a crucial opportunity to integrate considerations for AI’s impact on animal welfare. This strategy should be updated to reflect the unique challenges and risks that AI presents to non-human life and ensure comprehensive protections are established.
Source
phys.org