In 2015, a Great White Shark – vulnerable on the threatened species list – was killed under Western Australia’s catch-to-kill policy, after the animal was detected swimming near a bathing beach.

Authorities were only aware of the shark’s presence due to tracking data collected for the purposes of scientific research and conservation.

Figure 1. Researchers argue AI ethics should include animal welfare

Researchers argue AI ethics should include animal welfare is shown in Figure 1. The shark’s tale is a cautionary one. It’s one of the case studies University of Melbourne researchers have included in new research highlighting the potential harms to animals which might result from big data and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies.

Their paper, a framework for assessing AI harms to non-human animals, is published in Philosophy and Technology.Humans are usually front-of-mind in conversations about the ethics of big data and AI.

Lead author Dr Simon Coghlan is a philosopher at the University of Melbourne working in digital ethics. He has a background in veterinary science. Coghlan says: “There are different ways AI can affect animals for the worse, but also for the better”.

The paper (co-authored with Melbourne Law School Professor Christine Parker) focuses on potential AI harms to animals, given these tend to be neglected in discussions about AI and ethics, he says.[1]

Do animals possess sensitive data? Are they vulnerable to the repercussions of AI systems? And how can we safeguard their interests? These pivotal queries have been at the heart of C Minds' Future of Earth and our AI for Climate initiative.

The case study from the University of Melbourne exemplifies these concerns remarkably well! Researchers in Melbourne have embarked on a profound analysis of the potential threats that stem from big data and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies about animals.

Their recent study unfolds a cautionary narrative featuring a vulnerable Great White Shark. This creature became a casualty of Western Australia's catch-to-kill policy when it was spotted near a popular bathing beach, solely due to tracking data collected for scientific research and conservation purposes.

Although conversations about the ethical dimensions of big data and AI typically center on humans, Dr. Simon Coghlan, the lead author, emphasizes the pressing significance of AI's impact on the animal kingdom.

The research introduces a comprehensive framework designed to assess AI's potential harm to non-human animals, encompassing three distinct facets: intentional, unintentional, and foregone benefits.

The researchers aspire to see their framework seamlessly integrated into discussions surrounding AI ethics and regulation. By doing so, they aim to elevate awareness about AI's wide-reaching consequences beyond human well-being.[2]

References:

1. https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/ai/researchers-argue-ai-ethics-should-include-animal-welfare/
2. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/c-minds_researchers-argue-ai-ethics-should-include-activity-7095183622663491584-oSUl

Cite this article:

Gokula Nandhini K (2023), Researchers argue AI ethics should include animal welfare, AnaTechmaz, pp.559