Animals will be ok, if humans are ok because:
-
Humans probably have game-theoretic reasons to care about animals, to some extent. I explained those reasons here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ADZqKWvJBSbdKi2ru/is-it-beneficial-for-people-to-be-nice-to-weaker-agents
-
When people create strong artificial intelligence, people will become smart and they will realize those game-theoretic reasons.
-
Humans emotionally care about animals.
-
If you have extreme abundance, and you share 1% of that abundance with animals, then 1% of extreme abundance equals extreme abundance, in terms of utility, due to marginal diminishing utility of resources and power. I explained why resources and power have diminishing utility here: https://theoreticalexplorer.com/Alignment+between+humans/Equality/Why+is+inequality+bad+(both+for+poor+and+rich+people)#Logarithmic+relationship+between+number+or+resources+and+their+utility
-
Humans from the Sentinel Island are in a similar position to animals. They don't use computers, so for example they can't have their own local AI. They don't have close relatives among computer-literate people. If the humans from the Sentinel Island are fine, then it's most likely because someone shared abundance with them due to game-theoretic, emotional or cultural reasons. If that happens to them, it's likely to happen to animals as well.
On the other hand, historically, as far as I know, human technology has negatively impacted animals. But if we assume that artificial intelligence creates extreme abundance, it will be possible to make humans happy and animals happy.
If artificial intelligence won't create extreme abundance, then the impact on animals is likely to be negative.
But the expected value calculations are dominated by that case where artificial intelligence is completely transformative and capable of creating extreme abundance (the impact is much higher in that case).