That's great to hear! BlueDot has been my main resource for getting to grips with AI. Please feel free to share any ideas that come up as you explore how this applies to your own advocacy :-)

Thanks Tristan! Definitely agree that AGI's effects on animals (like on humans) are currently extremely uncertain – but by being proactive and strategic, we could still greatly increase the probability that those effects will be positive.

The recommendations I suggested seem broadly sensible to me but I'm sure that some are likely to be much more impactful than others, and some major ones are bound to be missing, and each one of them is sufficiently broad that it could cover a whole range of sub-priorities. This is probably an argument for prioritising the first of the principles that you mention, directing the movement toward considering the role of AI in its future, and agreeing on the set of practical, rapid steps that we need to take over the next few years. 

Thanks Simon! Yes, AI for inter-species communication is underway. The main organisations working on this at the moment are Earth Species Project (who just received a $17 million grant) and Project CETI. So far as I can tell, work is still in its early stages and mainly focussed on gathering and cleaning audiovisual data and getting a better sense for different species' portfolio of sounds, rather than actual communication. 

I'm still unsure how good this will be for animals. I wrote a brief post on this for the AI for Animals newsletter if you're interested, but the upshot is that I can see plenty of ways for this technology to be abused (e.g. used for hunting, fishing, exploitation of companion animals for entertainment purposes, co-option by the factory farming industry, etc.). I also think there's a risk that we only use it for communication with a handful of popular species (e.g. dogs, cats, whales, dolphins), and don't consider what this means for other less popular species (like farmed chickens).

The most promising project I've seen so far is the partnership between Project CETI and the More Than Human Life (MOTH) Project at New York University, which is focussed on the ethical implications of interspecies communication. I hope that these kinds of guidelines will end up driving progress on this rather than corporate interests... and that we focus on using AI to understand animals better on their own terms, rather than trying to communicate with them purely for our own curiosity and entertainment.

Thanks! I think your cynical take could be pretty accurate. From what I can tell, the alt protein industry is only making limited use of AI at the moment and no current applications seem like major game-changers. But at least in theory I'd expect increasingly advanced AI to significantly accelerate progress in this area given its potential for speeding up research and development more broadly, so my goal with this research was to try to get a sense for the kinds of specific use cases that might be particularly promising in the future as general AI capabilities improve and as companies/researchers find ways to address the various bottlenecks I mention. There's very limited research on AI and alt proteins and I had to rely a lot on general media coverage, which is obviously pretty limited and skewed, so I'm planning to talk more to experts in the area to get a better sense for this, which I might turn into a follow-up post at some point if it seems helpful.

Hey Jeroen! I'm a researcher at ACE and have been doing some work on our country prioritization model. This is a helpful question and one that we've been thinking about ourselves.

The general argument is that strong economic performance tends to correlate with liberalism, democracy, and progressive values, which themselves seem to correlate with progressive attitudes towards, and legislation for, animals. This is why it’s included in Mercy For Animals’ Farmed Animal Opportunity Index (FAOI), which we previously used for our evaluations and which our current country prioritization model is still loosely based on.

The relevance of this factor depends on the type of intervention being used - e.g., economic performance is likely to be particularly relevant for programs that depend on securing large amounts of government funding. For a lot of programs it won’t be very relevant, and for some a similar but more relevant indicator of tractability could be the percentage of income not spent on food (which we also use), as countries are probably more likely to allocate resources to animal advocacy if their money and mental bandwidth aren’t spent on securing essential needs. (Because of these kinds of considerations, this year we took a more bespoke approach when considering the likely tractability of each charity's work, relying less on the quantitative outputs of the country prioritization framework.)

Your intuition about money going further in poorer countries (everything else being equal) makes sense. We seek to capture this where possible on a charity-by-charity basis in our Cost-Effectiveness Assessments. For country prioritization more broadly, in theory it’s possible to account for this using indices like the OECD’s Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) Index. Various issues have been raised with the validity of PPP measurements (some examples here), which is one of the reasons we haven’t included it to date in our prioritization model, but for next year we plan to explore those issues in more detail and what the trade-offs are.

Hope that helps!

Hey, thanks for the question! I'm Max, a researcher at ACE. To provide some additional context to the other helpful comments:

• For our 2023 Evaluations we used a weighted factor model to calculate a cost-effectiveness score (rather than DALYs averted) for the charities that we evaluated. You can read more about this process, and the rationale for it, on the 'Criterion 2' tab of this page (with some additional context in this Forum comment).
• For our 2024 Evaluations, we're making a few updates to our criteria, including moving to more bespoke Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of each charity's key programs. This will be more in line with the DALYs-type metrics you mention (though of course will still be subject to plenty of caveats, uncertainties, and wide confidence estimates).
• Generally we think the best bet for ACE donors is our Recommended Charity Fund, as this allows us to allocate funds to the charities that we determine need it most at the time of disbursement. 
• In case you've not already seen it, you might also find Rethink Priorities' Cross-Cause Cost-Effectiveness Model helpful.
• Here’s my Calendly if you want to chat in more depth about ACE’s Evaluations process any time :-)

This is a really interesting project, thanks for sharing! Did you get any insights into how these attitudes might vary between animals/products? I assume people will feel a lot more disgusted about the idea of autonomous farms for e.g. cows and pigs than for e.g. insects, fish, and shrimp, and maybe chickens. (You might have seen this already but in theory you can already buy autonomous insect farms.) I guess public attitudes to this will also vary a lot between countries and cultural contexts. 

Generally I think it's really helpful to start thinking about our messaging around AI's role in animal farming - there seems like a big risk of industry 'AI-washing' their products and making out that all their animals now receive round-the-clock individualized care when actually they might just be using AI to maximise productivity and cut costs, with potentially minimal welfare gains. 

Thanks Bruce! Yes, I saw that - great to see this area getting some more funding and public attention!

Thanks for highlighting that point Hayven - I agree, and also hope we get to the point where animals are sufficiently well represented in democratic decision-making that those kinds of conflicts are massively reduced.

Thanks Cameron! That's a helpful point that I didn't really touch on in this post. Great that you're doing work in that space - I'm really interested to hear more about it so will get in touch.