1629 karmaJoined


Contractor RA to Peter Singer, Princeton



Hi Michael. I think AI can reduce cost spent on feed. It can't change the cost of the feed but it can change how much they need to use. For example, a lower mortality rate already means less feed per kg of product. 

Second, feeding could be optimized by reducing wasted feed. For example, there are AI systems built for fish farming that uses image recognition to identify the number of uneaten pellets in the water as an indicator or whether the fish is overfed at the moment. If yes, the system lowers the number of pellets dispensed and this reduces the number of pellets uneaten and get dropped to the bottom of the pond of leak from the bottom of a cage in the case of fish farms on the sea. Another way of doing it is to tell from the activeness of the fish. Or combined.

AI could also improve the whole feeding scheme to improve the feed conversion ratio.

Hi Aashish, thank you for your reply!

Re: your first question, I think I am very concerned about the impact of PLF techs in the global north, but it's kind of inevitable already - it will happen anyway. I think the question is how to make it develop into more animal friendly versions.

Re: your second question, I am starting to discuss with fellow advocates within the momvent on strategies to react to AI/PLF development in factory farming. I think I only have rough ideas that might be worth discussing further, but nothing worth actually implementing yet.

I think I don't have good answers to your last question because I know close to nothing about factory farming (or anything) in Africa.



I wonder if you have any official view/guidance on when and when not to do cross posting (AAF + EA forum), for people who want to post on the Animal Advocacy Forum?

I haven't spent any meaningful time thinking about this question in the context of Africa. But I have a sense of worry that one of the major drivers of factory farming intensification in Africa in the future is going to be a series of technologies called precision livestock farming technologies, which include AI, robotics, cloud computing, cloud-connected electronic gadgets. In particular, AI is going to be the center of all these.

AI and robotics used in factory farming are largely still in their R&D to pilot testing stages in developed countries (U.S., Canada, Japan, EU) and China. I don't see a reason why they will not get to a point where most factory farms in their countries can be, economically speaking (there might be political reasons against employing such technologies), largely run by AI and robots. And I think the costs of these AI systems and robots will go down and eventually be promoted to and sold to Africa. Their economic advantage might grow so huge that they will drive out the small holder farmers who cannot afford these systems. 

Thank you for doing this!

I have a question about the translation of "utilitarianism" to "功利主義". I have been thinking for very long that this is a bad translation in both the Japanese and Chinese contexts (for those who don't know these languages: "功利主義" is the most popular translation for "utilitarianism" in both Japanese and Chinese). The bad thing seems to be that the words "功利" has a bad connotation, and one that is almost the reverse of utlitarianism, therefore causing people to misunderstand utilitarianism, or have bad impression against it. 

My question is then: Do you think "功利主義" is a bad translation?  (not bad as in it is bad that you, or any translator chose this as the translation. But bad that it was, historically speaking, chosen and established as the popular translation.)

I'm working on plans to do more to support a rigorous search for approaches to animal-inclusive AI (or approaches to advancing wild animal welfare science broadly) that would also rank among the most promising ways to reduce human extinction risk from AI.

Interesting! I am interesting in discussing this idea further with you.

Could it be the case that another way to think about it is to search within the best approaches to reduce human x-risk, for a subset that is aslo animal inclusive? For example, if working on AI alignment is one of the best ways to reduce human x-risk, then we try to look for the subset within these alignment strategies that are also animal friendly?

Apparently Microsoft was also blindsided by this and didn't find out until moments before the announcement.

Not sure how important this is: Judging from the behavior of Satya Nadella during OpenAI's dev day 12 days ago, Microsoft quite likely didn't see that coming at that moment.


Thank you Ren. I want to say take your time, and please prioritize your own welfare on this.

Thank you for the post! 

It seems to me that a lot of how important this is also depends on how the shrimps die. Are they already dead, or still alive, when they are "processed" (e.g. sundried)? I heard shrimp paste companies bragging that from "harvest" to "processing", there were less than 3 hours.

Does anyone have information on this?

However, there are reasons to doubt this. The probabilities of different gambles add up only when the outcomes of those gambles are independent of one another. Are facts about honeybee sentience independent of facts about black soldier fly sentience? That is, do the prospects of their sentience rise and fall together?

In reply to my own comment above. I think it is important to recognize one further point: If one believes a species portofio approach to reduce risk of inefficacy doesn't work because prospects of the concerned species' sentience "rise and fall" together, one very likely also needs to, epistemologically speaking, put much less weight on the existence (and non-existence) of experimental evidence of sentience in their updating of views regarding animal sentience. The practical implication of this is that one might no longer be justified to say things like "the cleaner wrasse (the first fish purported to have passed the mirror test) is more likely to be sentient than other fish species."

Load more