This is a worthwhile idea, and I very much hope for it to be successful.
As I think about the idea, I wonder about the risk of backlash. I noticed your comment about how AI models have incorporated many values of the SF-area. Remember when there was a backlash against “woke” models (e.g., https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68412620 )?
It makes me wonder how we can get to a sentient-centric AI that doesn’t create backlash by producing analogous results that the typical person would find outlandish, but which an anti-speciesist vegan wouldn’t. Do social and AI changes have to happen in lockstep? Or at least without one getting too far ahead of the other? I’m unsure.
Yes, I agree that a “woke” backlash is a significant risk. I think the first step is research to define what a sentient-centric AI truly is: what is the vision and how it behaves in a world full of conflicts of interest between humans and animals.
In my view, the answer must be an AI that uplifts humanity and strengthens safety for humans too. A kind AI that aims for gradual change, and that, to an extent, accepts the reality that our current civilization is built on harming animals. We need an AI that helps shift this, but patiently and strategically.
I know it sounds grand, but I think as humanity, we need a new narrative, and probably the AI era will bring a new narrtaive anyway. So we should promote the stewardship narrative toward all sentient beings. If we are building something godlike, it makes sense that we grow into this kind of responsibility. This AI for sentientkind movement isn’t about “going vegan” and because of that it may trigger less public resistance. and this could tap into the compassion many people already have.
The hope is that with the tremendous power AI will give humans, to reshape both the world and themselves, the conflict of interest with animals will shrink dramatically, making it easier to accept and implement change.
This is a worthwhile idea, and I very much hope for it to be successful.
As I think about the idea, I wonder about the risk of backlash. I noticed your comment about how AI models have incorporated many values of the SF-area. Remember when there was a backlash against “woke” models (e.g., https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68412620 )?
It makes me wonder how we can get to a sentient-centric AI that doesn’t create backlash by producing analogous results that the typical person would find outlandish, but which an anti-speciesist vegan wouldn’t. Do social and AI changes have to happen in lockstep? Or at least without one getting too far ahead of the other? I’m unsure.
Thanks Jason.
Yes, I agree that a “woke” backlash is a significant risk. I think the first step is research to define what a sentient-centric AI truly is: what is the vision and how it behaves in a world full of conflicts of interest between humans and animals.
In my view, the answer must be an AI that uplifts humanity and strengthens safety for humans too. A kind AI that aims for gradual change, and that, to an extent, accepts the reality that our current civilization is built on harming animals. We need an AI that helps shift this, but patiently and strategically.
I know it sounds grand, but I think as humanity, we need a new narrative, and probably the AI era will bring a new narrtaive anyway. So we should promote the stewardship narrative toward all sentient beings. If we are building something godlike, it makes sense that we grow into this kind of responsibility. This AI for sentientkind movement isn’t about “going vegan” and because of that it may trigger less public resistance. and this could tap into the compassion many people already have.
The hope is that with the tremendous power AI will give humans, to reshape both the world and themselves, the conflict of interest with animals will shrink dramatically, making it easier to accept and implement change.