Interactions between Humans, Non-human Animals, and AI: Contemporary and Future AI Applications and Challenges

Dear Colleagues,

In the past decades, the differences between humans, non-human animals, and robots have been investigated through attributes such as human uniqueness and human nature (Bilewicz et al. 2011; Haslam 2006; Haslam and Loughnan 2014; Loughnan and Haslam 2007). Most significantly, in the hyperconnected world that is characterized by networks of entities that are continuously interacting and exchanging information (Swaminathan et al. 2020), the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have posed great ethical challenges to the harmonious interactions between humans, non-human animals, and AI. On the one hand, cognitive scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, and philosophers, among many others, have contributed abundantly to the debate of whether, why, and how humans should treat non-human animals morally (Allen and Bekoff 1999; Bastian et al. 2012; Francione 2008; Loughnan et al. 2010; Regan [1983] 2004; Singer [1975] 2002; Waytz et al. 2009). On the other hand, it has been recently advocated by many researchers that in the era of AI, the moral circle should be further expanded to machines, robots, and AI (Awad et al. 2018; Bigman et al. 2019; Danaher 2020; Wallach and Allen 2008).

In particular, different approaches to social cognition including the enactive principles for embodied interaction, have been discussed in building sophisticated autonomous social robots that can “seamlessly and reliably interact with humans in specific situations” (Gallagher 2007, 2013). Furthermore, researchers have also explored the kinds of moral impact AI has on non-human animals (Singer and Tse 2022) and how AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against non-human animals (Hagendorff et al. 2022). Meanwhile, in the domains of moral psychology and experimental philosophy, the empirical studies into the influence of ethical reflection on meat-eating behaviors have been conducted worldwide (Hou et al. 2022; Jalil et al. 2020; Schönegger and Wagner 2019; Schwitzgebel and Rust 2014; Schwitzgebel et al. 2020).

Thus, the purpose of this Special Issue is to facilitate the further research on the ethical challenges of contemporary and future AI applications, especially the implications for the interplay between humans, non-human animals and AI in the hyperconnected society. Authors are invited to submit theoretical or empirical research (quantitative, qualitative, case studies) and review papers. Intercultural, cross-tradition, and multidisciplinary investigations are highly welcome. Some keywords have been listed below for your possible reference.

Potential topics include, but are not limited to:

• ethics of/for AI;
• AI application in humans’ moral enhancement;
• morality in the AI-driven hyperconnected society;
• enactive and embodied cognition of social robots;
• from self-consciousness to social interactions in human and artificial agents;
• animal ethics;
• AI for animals.

We look forward to receiving your contributions.

References

• Allen, Colin, and Marc Bekoff. 1999. Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Awad, Edmond, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563: 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
• Bastian, Brock, Steve Loughnan, Nick Haslam, and Helena R. M. Radke. 2012. Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38: 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291
• Bigman, Yochanan E., Adam Waytz, Ron Alterovitz, and Kurt Gray. 2019. Holding robots responsible: The elements of machine morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23: 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.008
• Bilewicz, Michal, Roland Imhoff, and Marek Drogosz. 2011. The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology 41: 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.766
• Danaher, John. 2020. Welcoming robots into the moral circle: A defence of ethical behaviourism. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 2023–2049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00119-x
• Francione, Gary L. 2008. Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Gallagher, Shaun. 2007. Social cognition and social robots. Pragmatics & Cognition 15: 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.3.05gal
• Gallagher, Shaun. 2013. You and I, robot. AI & Society 28: 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0420-4
• Hagendorff, Thilo, Leonie N. Bossert, Yip Fai Tse, and Peter Singer. 2022. Speciesist bias in AI: How AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00199-9
• Haslam, Nick. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
• Haslam, Nick, and Steve Loughnan. 2014. Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology 65: 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
• Hou, Tiantian, Xiaojun Ding, and Feng Yu. 2022. The moral behavior of ethics professors: A replication-extension in Chinese mainland. Philosophical Psychology: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2084057
• Jalil, Andrew J., Joshua Tasoff, and Arturo Vargas Bustamante. 2020. Eating to save the planet. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial using individual-level food purchase data. Food Policy 95: 101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101950
• Loughnan, Stephen, and Nick Haslam. 2007. Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and nonhumans. Psychological Science 18: 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01858.x
• Loughnan, Steve, Nick Haslam, and Brock Bastian. 2010. The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite 55: 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043
• Regan, Tom. 2004. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. First published 1983.
• Schönegger, Philipp, and Johannes Wagner. 2019. The moral behavior of ethics professors: A replication-extension in German-speaking countries. Philosophical Psychology 32: 532–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1587912
• Schwitzgebel, Eric, Bradford Cokelet, and Peter Singer. 2020. Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat. Cognition 203: 104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397
• Schwitzgebel, Eric, and Joshua Rust. 2014. The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior. Philosophical Psychology 27: 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2012.727135
• Singer, Peter. 2002. Animal Liberation. 3rd edition. New York: HarperCollins. First published 1975.
• Singer, Peter, and Yip Fai Tse. 2022. AI ethics: The case for including animals. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00187-z
• Swaminathan, Vanitha, Alina Sorescu, Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, Thomas Clayton Gibson O’Guinn, and Bernd Schmitt. 2020. Branding in a hyperconnected world: Refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries. Journal of Marketing 84: 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919899905
• Wallach, Wendell, and Colin Allen. 2008. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Waytz, Adam, Ravi Iyer, Liane Young, Jonathan Haidt, and Jesse Graham. 2019. Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle. Nature Communications 10: 4389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12227-0

Prof. Dr. Feng Yu
Prof. Dr. Shaun Gallagher
Dr. Xiaojun Ding
Prof. Dr. Young E. Rhee
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Applied Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.