But you are introducing a regress here. Already, EAs care about animal welfare and consider AI important. Thus, I doubt that any AI safety agreements would omit non-human animals. Further, AI will probably consider non-human sentience, if it is sentient. Concrete (mega)projects are already being discussed. Encouraging people to research whale communication, now, is almost using emotion to slow people down on their aligned progress. So, while I appreciate your intent, I encourage you to research this topic further.
Also, you are assuming an erroneous dynamic. Animal welfare is important for AI safety not only because it enables it to acquire diametrically different impact but also since it provides a connection to the agriculture industry, a strategic sector in all nations. Once you have the agri lobbies on board, you speak with the US and Europe, at least, about safety sincerely.
But you are introducing a regress here. Already, EAs care about animal welfare and consider AI important.
But I think it’s much more like, some EAs care about animal welfare, and some EAs care about AI, and less care about both things. More importantly, of the relatively few people who care about both AI and animals, quite few of them care about them in a connected way.
Thus, I doubt that any AI safety agreements would omit non-human animals.
I actually doubt any AI safety agreements would explicitly include non-human animals. If you look at the public AI principles/statements/agreements from NGOs, universities, governments, and corporations, only the Montreal University said “all sentient beings”. From my experience in reading and discussing with the EA longtermist/AI community, I think AI safety principles published by EAs might be more likely to include all sentient beings than the world average. I think it’s still more unlikely than likely that EA AI safety principles will explicitly include animals.
Further, AI will probably consider non-human sentience, if it is sentient.
I would like to hear your argument on why you think so? It seems to me that humans didn’t simply care about other sentient beings only by being sentient ourselves.
Also, what about the scenario where there will be no sentient AI?
Also, you are assuming an erroneous dynamic. Animal welfare is important for AI safety not only because it enables it to acquire diametrically different impact but also since it provides a connection to the agriculture industry, a strategic sector in all nations.
I actually think that you might be assuming an erroneous dynamic. You might be connecting AI to the agricultural sector because you think there AI might affect farmed animals, which I actually agree will be the case (my main research focus is AI’s impacts on farmed animals). But AI won’t just affect the lives of farmed animals, but rather pretty much all animals: Farmed animals, wild animals, experimented animals, companion animals, human animals. For me the core reason animal welfare is important for AI is similar to why human welfare is important for AI—It’s because all sentient beings matter.
some EAs care about animal welfare, and some EAs care about AI, and less care about both things
It is not that people do not care as in do not consider the issue, they just do not prioritize it in their actions since they do not think that is how they make the highest impact (e. g. due to specialization).
quite few of them care about them in a connected way
Sure, that makes sense. Discourse on this topic has not extensively taken place so far, so the ways of connecting the two have not been much advanced.
doubt any AI safety agreements would explicitly include non-human animals
Yes, perhaps it is the best when it is implied that animals are included. Then, animals are included in statements other than that of the Montreal University, such as the Asilomar Principles. “[B]eneficial intelligence” and how “legal systems [can] be more fair and efficient” should be researched by teams that “actively cooperate” on the objective of “Shared Benefit.” Perhaps, by ‘people’ they meant persons, so any entities that currently have or should have legal personhood status, such as non-human animals.
humans didn’t simply care about other sentient beings only by being sentient ourselves.
But AI, even now, is smarter. It can read anything, so can figure that ‘good’ means ‘all sentience benefits.’ I have not yet askedIGPT-3 but just asking Google and skimming the results, it is clear that various forms of sentience should be considered. Perhaps, it is a matter of making AI realize this by asking them a few questions.
scenario where there will be no sentient AI?
It will be the same result, given relevant early-on entertainment in key questions. Just, less utility monsters will be included in the equations.
erroneous dynamic
Ok, no one is assuming erroneous dynamic. Farm animal welfare is a subset of animal welfare, which is a subset of sentience welfare. So, just to be safe (and fair), we should make AI consider the welfare of all sentience.
Also, you are assuming an erroneous dynamic. Animal welfare is important for AI safety not only because it enables it to acquire diametrically different impact but also since it provides a connection to the agriculture industry, a strategic sector in all nations. Once you have the agri lobbies on board, you speak with the US and Europe, at least, about safety sincerely.
Animal welfare 1) relates to animal agriculture, 2) which relates to the agricultural industry lobby, which 3) influences the government.
1) Animal welfare-animal agriculture. Animal welfare advocates form connections with the producers in a way in which they have certain influence over their decisions, considering that producers may choose to lose profit for uncertain return.
2) Animal agriculture—agriculture lobby. Companies of various sizes join associations that lobby governments. For example, the chicken producer Mountaire spent almost $6m on lobbying last fiscal year.[1]
3) Agriculture lobby—government. Companies can facilitate introductions of the welfare advocates’ wider network through their connections, attach technological and AI safety to their dialogues, or try get extra benefits by relating their interests to the catchy AI safety topic.
The introduction of AI safety through a trusted network[2] can motivate the government to internalizes interest in AI safety. Then, AI safety research would be sought for and thus better tailored to the current needs and accepted/implemented.
Further, animal welfare advocates develop generalizable skills, know-how, and capacity to influence national and regional decisionmaking. For example, an animal welfare org in Poland influenced a politician soon after their election by a skillful mention of him adhering to various promises but just not being able to summon the welfare one. They also conducted a research on him having a pet etc and tailored the appeal specifically while taking advantage of the timing. These skills can be less developed in AI safety, where academic paper writing, perhaps less accessible to politicians, is prioritized. So, animal welfare can be beneficial to AI safety also in more direct political advocacy.
a lot of the animal activism → animal agriculture lobby connection is adversarial, so this will be an unusually bad way to do outreach to them.
agricultural lobby → government efforts in AI safety also feels a bit weak to me. I’d be more excited about transferring of efforts/learnings from biosecurity lobbying, or prediction markets, or maybe even global health and development lobbying.
But you are introducing a regress here. Already, EAs care about animal welfare and consider AI important. Thus, I doubt that any AI safety agreements would omit non-human animals. Further, AI will probably consider non-human sentience, if it is sentient. Concrete (mega)projects are already being discussed. Encouraging people to research whale communication, now, is almost using emotion to slow people down on their aligned progress. So, while I appreciate your intent, I encourage you to research this topic further.
Also, you are assuming an erroneous dynamic. Animal welfare is important for AI safety not only because it enables it to acquire diametrically different impact but also since it provides a connection to the agriculture industry, a strategic sector in all nations. Once you have the agri lobbies on board, you speak with the US and Europe, at least, about safety sincerely.
But I think it’s much more like, some EAs care about animal welfare, and some EAs care about AI, and less care about both things. More importantly, of the relatively few people who care about both AI and animals, quite few of them care about them in a connected way.
I actually doubt any AI safety agreements would explicitly include non-human animals. If you look at the public AI principles/statements/agreements from NGOs, universities, governments, and corporations, only the Montreal University said “all sentient beings”. From my experience in reading and discussing with the EA longtermist/AI community, I think AI safety principles published by EAs might be more likely to include all sentient beings than the world average. I think it’s still more unlikely than likely that EA AI safety principles will explicitly include animals.
I would like to hear your argument on why you think so? It seems to me that humans didn’t simply care about other sentient beings only by being sentient ourselves.
Also, what about the scenario where there will be no sentient AI?
I actually think that you might be assuming an erroneous dynamic. You might be connecting AI to the agricultural sector because you think there AI might affect farmed animals, which I actually agree will be the case (my main research focus is AI’s impacts on farmed animals). But AI won’t just affect the lives of farmed animals, but rather pretty much all animals: Farmed animals, wild animals, experimented animals, companion animals, human animals. For me the core reason animal welfare is important for AI is similar to why human welfare is important for AI—It’s because all sentient beings matter.
It is not that people do not care as in do not consider the issue, they just do not prioritize it in their actions since they do not think that is how they make the highest impact (e. g. due to specialization).
Sure, that makes sense. Discourse on this topic has not extensively taken place so far, so the ways of connecting the two have not been much advanced.
Yes, perhaps it is the best when it is implied that animals are included. Then, animals are included in statements other than that of the Montreal University, such as the Asilomar Principles. “[B]eneficial intelligence” and how “legal systems [can] be more fair and efficient” should be researched by teams that “actively cooperate” on the objective of “Shared Benefit.” Perhaps, by ‘people’ they meant persons, so any entities that currently have or should have legal personhood status, such as non-human animals.
But AI, even now, is smarter. It can read anything, so can figure that ‘good’ means ‘all sentience benefits.’ I have not yet asked IGPT-3 but just asking Google and skimming the results, it is clear that various forms of sentience should be considered. Perhaps, it is a matter of making AI realize this by asking them a few questions.
It will be the same result, given relevant early-on entertainment in key questions. Just, less utility monsters will be included in the equations.
Ok, no one is assuming erroneous dynamic. Farm animal welfare is a subset of animal welfare, which is a subset of sentience welfare. So, just to be safe (and fair), we should make AI consider the welfare of all sentience.
Can you spell out the connection?
Animal welfare 1) relates to animal agriculture, 2) which relates to the agricultural industry lobby, which 3) influences the government.
1) Animal welfare-animal agriculture. Animal welfare advocates form connections with the producers in a way in which they have certain influence over their decisions, considering that producers may choose to lose profit for uncertain return.
2) Animal agriculture—agriculture lobby. Companies of various sizes join associations that lobby governments. For example, the chicken producer Mountaire spent almost $6m on lobbying last fiscal year.[1]
3) Agriculture lobby—government. Companies can facilitate introductions of the welfare advocates’ wider network through their connections, attach technological and AI safety to their dialogues, or try get extra benefits by relating their interests to the catchy AI safety topic.
The introduction of AI safety through a trusted network[2] can motivate the government to internalizes interest in AI safety. Then, AI safety research would be sought for and thus better tailored to the current needs and accepted/implemented.
Further, animal welfare advocates develop generalizable skills, know-how, and capacity to influence national and regional decisionmaking. For example, an animal welfare org in Poland influenced a politician soon after their election by a skillful mention of him adhering to various promises but just not being able to summon the welfare one. They also conducted a research on him having a pet etc and tailored the appeal specifically while taking advantage of the timing. These skills can be less developed in AI safety, where academic paper writing, perhaps less accessible to politicians, is prioritized. So, animal welfare can be beneficial to AI safety also in more direct political advocacy.
Note that most investments go to conservatives, which is a group possibly less currently engaged with EA.
Apparently, the US agri lobby/govt cooperation has existed since the late 19th century.
Thanks for the explanation. My impression is that
a lot of the animal activism → animal agriculture lobby connection is adversarial, so this will be an unusually bad way to do outreach to them.
agricultural lobby → government efforts in AI safety also feels a bit weak to me. I’d be more excited about transferring of efforts/learnings from biosecurity lobbying, or prediction markets, or maybe even global health and development lobbying.