Here’s how I’m thinking about this:

From the perspective of non-human animals, humanity looks a lot like an unaligned superintelligence. We closely resemble the "paperclip maximizer" thought experiment, where the "paperclips" are narrow human goals. Over millennia, we’ve become incredibly good at optimizing for those goals, but in the process we systematically exclude other sentient beings out of the moral circle and override their most basic interests for benefits that are often trivial.

Given this reality, without a fundamental shift in our ethics, superintelligence is more likely to scale our existing biases than to correct them.  A more powerful optimizer does not automatically become more benevolent; it just becomes more effective at pursuing the same goals. And higher intelligence and capability do not by themselves fix moral blind spots.

This is precisely the insight that drives concern about AI alignment. We do not assume that more capable and intelligent AI systems will automatically act in ways that are good for us. (Even though they do not have anywhere near as bad a track record as humanity does toward animals.)  If “automatic benefit” were a real thing, AI alignment would be a niche concern rather than a central one. We would just accelerate progress and trust that everything else would sort itself out. But we do not believe that, and for good reason. 

If we take this insight seriously, we should also apply it symmetrically. The core alignment problem may not just be between humans and AI, but between humans and the rest of sentient life. And it would be dangerously Panglossian to assume that AGI will automatically solve animal suffering. Based on humanity’s track record of causing massive harm despite our increasing capabilities, it is irresponsible to default to optimism about AGI “naturally” improving things without a justification that matches what is at stake. 

Extra thought 1:

And the thing that worries me most about human alignment? Permanent lock-in. If we reach advanced AI systems without deliberately including concern for all sentient beings, we risk locking in a future where today’s exclusions last for a very long time. Once such systems are embedded in infrastructure, institutions, and potentially self-improving AI, their underlying value structures may become extremely difficult to change.

A historical analogy makes this clear. Think about the Industrial Revolution, a massive event that empowered humanity. If it had happened in a society that cared about animal welfare (maybe a vegetarian country?), trillions of farmed animals could have been spared extreme suffering (cramped spaces, painful procedures and deaths for basically trivial human gain.) Early ethical choices really do shape the fate of huge numbers of sentient beings.

Moreover, the stakes are far greater this time. Humanity will remain a tiny outlier, yet one that would hold disproportionate power over a vastly larger number of sentient beings in the future. So, misalignments now could ripple across astronomical numbers of individuals, turning a large-scale moral failure into a potentially permanent, cosmic-scale one.

Extra thought 2:

It’s sadly all too common for us to push animals to the very bottom of the priority list, thinking, “Once we fix all our problems, we’ll start worrying about extreme animal suffering.” So I’m really glad to see this discussion happening!

Thank you for the post! This reinforces my view that industrial profitability is likely the most important leverage point for large-scale systemic change.

Technologies like in ovo sexing, immunocastration, or controlled atmospheric stunning are good examples of solutions that are both positive for animal welfare and profitable for the industry. In recent years, we have also begun to see genetic interventions at the intersection of welfare and profitability. For instance, the CRISPR-edited "Slick" gene, which addresses heat stress (a condition that costs the US beef industry over $1 billion annually) received FDA approval in 2022. Similarly, driven by the high costs and labor-intensive nature of dehorning, there is ongoing genetic work to develop and proliferate 'polled' (hornless) cattle. It has already been proven that these bulls can transmit the hornless trait to 100% of their offspring, potentially eliminating the need for those painful and costly procedures. 

What I am currently reflecting on is whether these technological indicators justify moving toward more radical interventions that reduce suffering in the industry, such as genetically raising the pain threshold of animals. I have seen the topic of "genetic welfare" evaluated in theoretical EA discussions (it was exciting to see a week dedicated to it in the Sentient Futures fellowship!). However, I haven't encountered even a BOTEC-style analysis regarding the technical feasibility of the subject. Are you aware of any sources I might have missed, or how does this prospect strike you at first glance? 

My individual research has led me to speculate that  creating "stress-ressilient" herds through genetic intervention could (once initial R&D costs are covered) be profitable for the industry. Ultimately, the fear, panic, and chronic stress mechanisms that help animals to survive in the wild have no functional equivalent in the isolated and controlled environment of the industry. In fact, there are several reasons to suggest that stress is a significant operational cost:

Metabolic Waste: When an animal experiences fear or panic, the resulting cortisol spikes divert metabolic energy toward "fight or flight" mode rather than growth or tissue repair. This leads directly to a decline in Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) and results in increased costs. 

Product Quality: Acute stress during transport or pre-slaughter alters meat chemistry, leading to irreversible quality defects like PSE (Pale, Soft, Exudative) or DFD (Dark, Firm, Dry), which lower market value.

Operational Losses: Increased antibiotic expenditures due to stress-induced immunosuppression, along with physical injuries and "shrinkage" caused by social conflict, further strain profitability. 

Although the profitability of stress-resilient herds is speculative, I believe the argument bear a deep resemblance to a common argument for cultured meat. Cultured meat advocates describe the massive metabolic energy spent maintaining a central nervous system, skeletal structure, and digestive system (parts that do not become the "final product") as systemic waste. Rather than trying to rebuild the current level of biological optimization from scratch in a lab, might it be a faster route to intervene in the system's existing "software"? By genetically "dimming" stress responses (for example, partially silencing specific genes responsible for stress triggers), we could directly target this energy leak within the current "infrastructure" . 

What are your thoughts on this reasoning? The industrial livestock sector may not have a reason to shoulder the high-risk, initial R&D costs of radical innovations. However, if independent ventures or altruistic funding can handle the early-stage R&D and show that this technology is actually profitable, could the change become self-sustaining without the need for external pressure from activists?