Latest revision as of 15:39, 8 January 2024

Harm to Nonhuman Animals from AI: a Systematic Account and Framework (research)

Harm to Nonhuman Animals from AI: a Systematic Account and Framework is a 2021 academic paper by John Hadley, Adam Henschke, and Robert Sparrow, published in the journal AI & Society. The paper provides a systematic account of how artificial intelligence (AI) technologies could harm nonhuman animals and explains why animal harms, often neglected in AI ethics, should be better recognized.

The paper begins by giving reasons for caring about animals and outlining the nature of animal harm, interests, and wellbeing. The authors then develop a comprehensive “harms framework” based on the work of animal scientist David Fraser, which maps human activities that impact on sentient animals. The harms framework is fleshed out with examples inspired by both scholarly literature and media reports.

The authors argue that AI has significant potential to harm animals, both independently and with existing technologies. They provide examples of how AI can create and amplify harms to animals, such as through automation in chicken sheds and dairies, robots, drones, and vehicles that incorporate AI in ways that may benefit or harm animals.

The paper concludes by considering the implications of their framework and suggesting directions for further research. The authors argue that their systematic account and framework should help inform ethical analyses of AI’s impact on animals and serve as a comprehensive and clear basis for the development and regulation of AI technologies to prevent and mitigate harm to nonhumans.

The Harms Framework

The framework is based on the work of animal scientist David Fraser and maps human activities that impact on sentient animals. The harms framework is intended to help inform ethical analyses of AI’s impact on animals and serve as a comprehensive and clear basis for the development and regulation of AI technologies to prevent and mitigate harm to nonhumans. The framework includes intentional harms that are legal or condemned, direct and indirect unintentional harm, foregone benefits, and systemic harms. It provides a way to classify and capture the many ways in which AI might create new harms or amplify existing harms for animals.

The 5 harms

Intentional harms that are legal or condemned
Direct unintentional harm
Indirect unintentional harm
Foregone benefits
Systemic harms

External links

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-023-00627-6

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Needs work|Problem=Needs completing}}
+{{Library header}}
-'''Harm to Nonhuman Animals from AI: a Systematic Account and Framework''' was published in 2021 by Simon Coghlan, who is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Melbourne. It was published in the journal Conservation Science and Practice.
+'''Harm to Nonhuman Animals from AI: a Systematic Account and Framework''' is a 2021 academic paper by John Hadley, Adam Henschke, and Robert Sparrow, published in the journal AI & Society. The paper provides a systematic account of how artificial intelligence (AI) technologies could harm nonhuman animals and explains why animal harms, often neglected in AI ethics, should be better recognized.
-The report investigates how public attitudes and policy preferences change after shark bite incidents, and how this affects shark conservation efforts. Drawing on literature from media and film studies, psychology, and environmental ethics, the report reviews how media and film narratives shape public perception and policy support for shark conservation. The report then presents the results of a comparative survey study in two locations in Australia: Ballina in New South Wales and Perth in Western Australia. The study examines how public attitudes and policy preferences vary by demographic factors, media exposure, and shark bite experience. The report discusses the implications of the findings for theory and practice, and suggests directions for future research and recommendations for policy makers and stakeholders. The report concludes by emphasizing the need for more evidence-based and humane approaches to shark conservation that consider both human and animal interests.
+The paper begins by giving reasons for caring about animals and outlining the nature of animal harm, interests, and wellbeing. The authors then develop a comprehensive “harms framework” based on the work of animal scientist David Fraser, which maps human activities that impact on sentient animals. The harms framework is fleshed out with examples inspired by both scholarly literature and media reports.
-== External links ==
+The authors argue that AI has significant potential to harm animals, both independently and with existing technologies. They provide examples of how AI can create and amplify harms to animals, such as through automation in chicken sheds and dairies, robots, drones, and vehicles that incorporate AI in ways that may benefit or harm animals.
-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-023-00627-6
-[[Category:Reports]]
+The paper concludes by considering the implications of their framework and suggesting directions for further research. The authors argue that their systematic account and framework should help inform ethical analyses of AI’s impact on animals and serve as a comprehensive and clear basis for the development and regulation of AI technologies to prevent and mitigate harm to nonhumans.
+== The Harms Framework ==
+The framework is based on the work of animal scientist David Fraser and maps human activities that impact on sentient animals. The harms framework is intended to help inform ethical analyses of AI’s impact on animals and serve as a comprehensive and clear basis for the development and regulation of AI technologies to prevent and mitigate harm to nonhumans. The framework includes intentional harms that are legal or condemned, direct and indirect unintentional harm, foregone benefits, and systemic harms. It provides a way to classify and capture the many ways in which AI might create new harms or amplify existing harms for animals.
+==The 5 harms==
+#Intentional harms that are legal or condemned
+#Direct unintentional harm
+#Indirect unintentional harm
+#Foregone benefits
+#Systemic harms
+==External links==
+* https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-023-00627-6
+[[Category:Animals and AI (research)]]
+[[Category:Animals and technology (research)]]