Somewhat neutral, though I concur that animal welfare is more neglected and that a straightforward shortterm calculation is on the animal welfare side. However:
With AI, ensuring longevity for many people may be a better use, though I'm uncertain about the exact costs. Animals are more interchangeable than humans, and will die within not that long regardless, which means that ensuring more humans live longer lives is more valuable. The more people that live longer, the more that are able to participate in a possible longevity escape velocity. (Theoretically one could argue for lengthening the lives of many animals, but most animals are unlikely to live for long enough and will take longer to be given life extending medications)
This makes me view the calculus as significantly more balanced, or potentially weighted on global health significantly. If we can ensure that more people survive, then that ensures a lot of positive utility.
Somewhat neutral, though I concur that animal welfare is more neglected and that a straightforward shortterm calculation is on the animal welfare side. However:
With AI, ensuring longevity for many people may be a better use, though I'm uncertain about the exact costs. Animals are more interchangeable than humans, and will die within not that long regardless, which means that ensuring more humans live longer lives is more valuable. The more people that live longer, the more that are able to participate in a possible longevity escape velocity. (Theoretically one could argue for lengthening the lives of many animals, but most animals are unlikely to live for long enough and will take longer to be given life extending medications)
This makes me view the calculus as significantly more balanced, or potentially weighted on global health significantly. If we can ensure that more people survive, then that ensures a lot of positive utility.