Thank you for the post! Left me a bit more hopeful. Encouraging/pushing AI labs to consider animals more seems even better tractable than the already successful corporate campaigns. Some lab leaders are already sympathetic, and there is no obvious impact on costs.
Some of my other worries is that the monitoring of needs, while leading to measurable welfare improvements, can sow divisions among animal advocate factions (rights vs welfare). And the desensitization of the general public to farm footage amidst increasing amounts of fake material. It could become harder to achieve that emotional push which motivates many to sign, donate, advocate towards a cause.
Thanks Artūrs! That's a really interesting point about the risk of the desensitization of the public to farm footage with increasing amounts of fake material.
Thanks Lewis. Important closing points: "So perhaps the best thing we can do is to keep influencing those human values in the right direction... The most important thing is that we continue to raise the plight of animals — and seek to expand humanity’s moral circle to cover ever more sentient beings."
You might find the Sentientism worldview and nascent "movement" of interest in that light. In short it's "evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings". We need good epistemology and ethics - neither is sufficient. https://sentientism.info/ and https://linktr.ee/sentientism
Thanks Lewis - would love to know what you think. Would love to have you as a guest on the Sentientism podcast too (yes of course there's a podcast) if it ever fits your plans.
Thanks Jamie! I'd love to come on your podcast sometime. I'm currently working on a book, so maybe we'd have a bit more to discuss when that's complete :)
Sounds great Lewis - just let me know when works for you. I'm @Sentientism everywhere or at hello@sentientism.info for email. Good luck with the book in the meantime!
Lucid thoughts, Lewis, close to what is vaguely going round in my head for some time already. I also agree with your draft campaign plan. However, the main main drivers of AI development are the guys interested in profit, not the developers. So, for the animals' sake, the campaign should also address the profit guys, some of which are already investors in the plant/cell based meat business and could act as a bridgehead to their colleagues.
>Will an industry too stingy to install air conditioning or fire sprinklers really spring for AI sensors to help its animals?
I agree with the conclusion, but I wouldn't say "stingy." That implies some that isn't, I think, true. It is a cutthroat (literally) industry with narrow profit margins. Everything is done to cut costs - not to be stingy, but to be competitive.
(I also think the industry drives out empathetic people and collects sadists, just by the nature of the work.)
Fair point! I agree the industry's intent is to cut costs. But I also think that when a major meat producer, like Tyson, chooses not to reinvest any of its annual gross profits of >$6B into basic animal welfare improvements, it's being stingy.
Thank you for the post! Left me a bit more hopeful. Encouraging/pushing AI labs to consider animals more seems even better tractable than the already successful corporate campaigns. Some lab leaders are already sympathetic, and there is no obvious impact on costs.
Some of my other worries is that the monitoring of needs, while leading to measurable welfare improvements, can sow divisions among animal advocate factions (rights vs welfare). And the desensitization of the general public to farm footage amidst increasing amounts of fake material. It could become harder to achieve that emotional push which motivates many to sign, donate, advocate towards a cause.
Thanks Artūrs! That's a really interesting point about the risk of the desensitization of the public to farm footage with increasing amounts of fake material.
Thanks Lewis. Important closing points: "So perhaps the best thing we can do is to keep influencing those human values in the right direction... The most important thing is that we continue to raise the plight of animals — and seek to expand humanity’s moral circle to cover ever more sentient beings."
You might find the Sentientism worldview and nascent "movement" of interest in that light. In short it's "evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings". We need good epistemology and ethics - neither is sufficient. https://sentientism.info/ and https://linktr.ee/sentientism
Thanks Jamie! "evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings" is a good description of my worldview. I'll check out the Sentientism link.
Thanks Lewis - would love to know what you think. Would love to have you as a guest on the Sentientism podcast too (yes of course there's a podcast) if it ever fits your plans.
Thanks Jamie! I'd love to come on your podcast sometime. I'm currently working on a book, so maybe we'd have a bit more to discuss when that's complete :)
Sounds great Lewis - just let me know when works for you. I'm @Sentientism everywhere or at hello@sentientism.info for email. Good luck with the book in the meantime!
Lucid thoughts, Lewis, close to what is vaguely going round in my head for some time already. I also agree with your draft campaign plan. However, the main main drivers of AI development are the guys interested in profit, not the developers. So, for the animals' sake, the campaign should also address the profit guys, some of which are already investors in the plant/cell based meat business and could act as a bridgehead to their colleagues.
Good idea! Thanks for the suggestion Billo.
>Will an industry too stingy to install air conditioning or fire sprinklers really spring for AI sensors to help its animals?
I agree with the conclusion, but I wouldn't say "stingy." That implies some that isn't, I think, true. It is a cutthroat (literally) industry with narrow profit margins. Everything is done to cut costs - not to be stingy, but to be competitive.
(I also think the industry drives out empathetic people and collects sadists, just by the nature of the work.)
Fair point! I agree the industry's intent is to cut costs. But I also think that when a major meat producer, like Tyson, chooses not to reinvest any of its annual gross profits of >$6B into basic animal welfare improvements, it's being stingy.