In short, the potential of AI in unraveling animal communication is indeed intriguing, yet it’s not without significant concerns. These include the ethical implications of artificial environments, the validity of conducting potentially redundant tests, and the genuine challenge of discerning authentic animal communication from mere learned responses.
Additionally, the tendency to attribute human characteristics to animal behaviors introduces a layer of complexity and potential misinterpretation. As I explored in my book, ‘animal privacy and consent’ topics are particularly nuanced, often leading to oversimplified conclusions of inherently multifaceted ethical issues.
It’s a topic that doesn’t lend itself to easy answers. As I’ve mentioned before, I remain cautious about their ability to achieve an accurate understanding fully through these methods.
@roberto The Human Interpretation Issue is a BIG thing for me.
You’ve written A LOT ABOUT THIS & I find this particular topic fascinating. I know we, as humans, often mistakenly think animals act or think like humans. This can lead to misunderstanding what they’re really doing or saying. I totally understand that these are complex ideas, and sometimes people oversimplify them. However, I’m curious if you think that, as HUMANS, we are either not equipped with the necessary knowledge, experience, or cognitive abilities to understand animal communications? (I’m not saying we’re stupid, but we’re of a different species & it may be difficult for us to wrap our mind around complex animal communication which includes not only sounds BUT movement and BODY LANGUAGE) Or do our biases keep us from actually being able to break that communication barrier?
Our perception shapes our understanding, yet others may view the same phenomenon differently. The complexity of behavior extends beyond merely defining it; its study methods are equally intricate. Communication and language serve various purposes, and while some are understood through correlation or causation, this leads us back to the subjectivity of perception.
We can exchange specific signals with other species and receive the feedback we need, but the extent of our mutual comprehension remains questionable. If we are observing interactions between individuals of different species, one (me) might interpret their communication one way, while another (you) observer might see it differently. Who is to say which interpretation is correct?
I don’t dismiss the objectives of these scientists. However, the tendency to oversimplify, apply anthropomorphism, and rely on nascent AI models makes me highly skeptical.
Animal behavior, as science itself, is replete with subtleties, and drawing from my experience—as the image below illustrates—we have much to learn.
@roberto: Perhaps the elsewhere-described gorilla would NOT be distracted by zoo visitors’ cellphones if the robot were there eating in front of the gorilla?
