Animal Ethics has recently launched Senti, an Ethical AI assistant designed to answer questions related to animal ethics, wild animal suffering, and longtermism. We at Animal Ethics believe that while AI technologies could potentially pose significant risks to animals, they could benefit all sentient beings if used responsibly. For example, Animal advocates can leverage AI to amplify our message and improve our approach to share information about Animal Ethics with a wider audience. 

There is a lack of knowledge today not just among the general public, but also among people sympathetic to nonhuman animals, about the basic concepts and arguments underpinning the critique of speciesism, animal exploitation, concern for wild animal suffering, and future sentient beings. Many of the ideas are unintuitive as well, so it helps people to be able to chat and ask followup questions in order to cement their understanding. We hope this tool will help to change that!  



Senti, our AI assistant is powered by Claude, Anthropic’s large language model (LLM), however, it has been designed to reflect the views of Animal Ethics. We provided Senti with a database of carefully curated documents about animal ethics and related topics. Almost all of them were written by Animal Ethics, and we are now adding more sources. When you ask a question, Senti searches through the documents and retrieves the most relevant information to form an answer. After each answer, there are links to the sources of information so you can read more. We continually update Senti, and we’d love to have your feedback on your experience.

Senti has been designed to discuss topics related to the wellbeing of all sentient beings, and we request users to restrict their conversations to topics related to helping animals and other sentient beings. We have also provided a list of 24 preset questions that you can use to explore different topics related to animal ethics. 

When you chat with Senti for the first time, you’ll be presented with a consent form. It requests permission to save your conversation history. Saving your conversation history allows you and Senti to have a continuous conversation, with Senti remembering what you’ve already discussed. It also provides us with your chat history, which is anonymous. This will help us to improve the answers and know what new information to add. You do not have to give your consent to chat with Senti. If you decline, your chat history won’t be saved, but you can still ask questions.

We would like to give special appreciation to the team at Freeport Metrics, which provided extensive pro bono services to build the infrastructure, handle the technical setup, and design the UI for Senti. They conducted extensive testing and offered ongoing support, without which the project could not have been completed. We would additionally like to thank our volunteers who have been helping test new prompts, new document sets, and different settings, such as how many pieces of information to retrieve to respond to each question.

We are continually working on improving Senti by running independent tests with the new Claude 3 models. We expect to deliver an update in the coming months that provides longer and more accurate responses.

We hope Senti helps you learn a lot and makes it easier for you to share the information with others. 

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Great to see this! One quick piece of feedback: It takes a while to see a response from the chatbot. Are you planning on streaming text responses in the future?

Yes, and we are also planning to switch to Claude Haiku (a faster model for generating responses).

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma