Episode Details
Back to Episodes“AI Safety and Cross-Species Robustness: A brief critical review” by Jim Buhler
Description
0. Summary
This piece makes the following three points (which match the numbered sections):
-
We have, I argue, no good reason to presume that reducing existential risks from AI, which is explicitly intended to help humans,[1] is good for other animals. This is because animal farming would not exist without empowered humans, and assuming that these same empowered humans will outweigh this by sufficiently increasing wild animal welfare seems untenable. And to the extent that x-risk reduction appears as the dominant consequence of most (if not all) AI safety work, this refutes the case for AI x-risk reduction and AI safety being robustly good for all sentient beings. Importantly, while I therefore reject the position that reducing AI safety is net good for animals, this post does not take a stance on “it is net bad” vs “we should be agnostic” (although I preach for the latter elsewhere).
- Still, this need not defeat the case for AI alignment, AI control, restraining AI development, or other AI safety work not primarily aimed at benefiting animals. Such work may remain positive if we assume specific interspecies tradeoffs, set some particular uncertain effects aside, or couple it with a sufficient amount [...]
---
Outline:
(00:12) 0. Summary
(02:12) 1. AI safety may not help everyone
(03:36) 1.1. Saving humans means saving animal farming for at least some time
(04:25) 1.2. Saving humans has unclear implications for wild animal welfare
(08:59) 1.3. Trading off farmed and wild animal welfare
(10:28) 1.4. What all this does and does not imply
(12:17) 2. Can we defend AI safety regardless?
(12:22) 2.1. Background on why cross-species robustness would have been convenient
(13:49) 2.2. Three ways of doing without cross-species robustness
(17:16) 3. Conclusion: The relevance of off-target effects
(18:16) Acknowledgments
---
First published:
March 24th, 2026
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.