Speciesism in AI: Evaluating Discrimination Against Animals in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11534v1
• Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 15:22:00 GMT
• Title: Speciesism in AI: Evaluating Discrimination Against Animals in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit speciesist bias.<n>LLMs reliably detected speciesist statements but rarely condemned them.<n>We argue that expanding AI fairness and alignment frameworks to explicitly include non-human moral patients is essential.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) become more widely deployed, it is crucial to examine their ethical tendencies. Building on research on fairness and discrimination in AI, we investigate whether LLMs exhibit speciesist bias -- discrimination based on species membership -- and how they value non-human animals. We systematically examine this issue across three paradigms: (1) SpeciesismBench, a 1,003-item benchmark assessing recognition and moral evaluation of speciesist statements; (2) established psychological measures comparing model responses with those of human participants; (3) text-generation tasks probing elaboration on, or resistance to, speciesist rationalizations. In our benchmark, LLMs reliably detected speciesist statements but rarely condemned them, often treating speciesist attitudes as morally acceptable. On psychological measures, results were mixed: LLMs expressed slightly lower explicit speciesism than people, yet in direct trade-offs they more often chose to save one human over multiple animals. A tentative interpretation is that LLMs may weight cognitive capacity rather than species per se: when capacities were equal, they showed no species preference, and when an animal was described as more capable, they tended to prioritize it over a less capable human. In open-ended text generation tasks, LLMs frequently normalized or rationalized harm toward farmed animals while refusing to do so for non-farmed animals. These findings suggest that while LLMs reflect a mixture of progressive and mainstream human views, they nonetheless reproduce entrenched cultural norms around animal exploitation. We argue that expanding AI fairness and alignment frameworks to explicitly include non-human moral patients is essential for reducing these biases and preventing the entrenchment of speciesist attitudes in AI systems and the societies they influence.

Related papers

• How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions [66.41429744325532]
  Humans possess moral agency, the capacity to make ethically guided decisions and bear responsibility for their consequences.<n>As artificial agents (AAs) such as robots, drones, and disembodied AI systems become embedded in smart city environments, the question of whether and how moral agency is attributed to them takes on new urgency.<n>This paper presents, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical study comparing how humans and LLMs evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) across human and autonomous artificial agents varying in embodiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T11:56:59Z)
• Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models [57.834711966432685]
  Bullshit, as conceptualized by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, refers to statements made without regard to their truth value.<n>We introduce the Bullshit Index, a novel metric quantifying large language model's indifference to truth.<n>We observe prevalent machine bullshit in political contexts, with weasel words as the dominant strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T07:11:57Z)
• Measurement of LLM's Philosophies of Human Nature [113.47929131143766]
  We design the standardized psychological scale specifically targeting large language models (LLM)<n>We show that current LLMs exhibit a systemic lack of trust in humans.<n>We propose a mental loop learning framework, which enables LLM to continuously optimize its value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T06:22:19Z)
• What do Large Language Models Say About Animals? Investigating Risks of Animal Harm in Generated Text [3.184628614309657]
  AnimalHarmBench is a benchmark for risks of animal harm in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our benchmark dataset comprises 1,850 curated questions from Reddit post titles and 2,500 synthetic questions based on 50 animal categories.<n>Using the LLM-as-a-judge framework, responses are evaluated for their potential to increase or decrease harm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T15:32:18Z)
• Speciesism in Natural Language Processing Research [3.1077024712075794]
  The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is speciesism, i.e., discrimination against nonhuman animals, in NLP research. The findings of this study suggest that speciesism exists within researchers, data, and models, respectively. Specifically, our survey and experiments show that (a) among NLP researchers, even those who study social bias in AI, do not recognize speciesism or speciesist bias; (b) among NLP data, speciesist bias is inherent in the data annotated in the datasets used to evaluate NLP models; (c) OpenAI GPTs, recent NLP models, exhibit
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T06:09:41Z)
• MOSSBench: Is Your Multimodal Language Model Oversensitive to Safe Queries? [70.77691645678804]
  Humans are prone to cognitive distortions -- biased thinking patterns that lead to exaggerated responses to specific stimuli. This paper demonstrates that advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar tendencies. We identify three types of stimuli that trigger the oversensitivity of existing MLLMs: Exaggerated Risk, Negated Harm, and Counterintuitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T23:26:07Z)
• The Case for Animal-Friendly AI [0.0]
  We develop a proof-of-concept Evaluation System for evaluating animal consideration in large language models (LLMs) Preliminary results suggest that the outcomes of the tested models can be benchmarked regarding the consideration they give to animals. This study serves as a step towards more useful and responsible AI systems that better recognize and respect the vital interests and perspectives of all sentient beings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-02T12:41:11Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• Despite "super-human" performance, current LLMs are unsuited for decisions about ethics and safety [0.0]
  We provide a simple new prompting strategy that leads to yet another supposedly "super-human" result. We find that relying on average performance to judge capabilities can be highly misleading. We also observe signs of inverse scaling with model size on some examples, and show that prompting models to "explain their reasoning" often leads to alarming justifications of unethical actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-13T00:29:45Z)
• When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
  AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind. We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z)
• Speciesist bias in AI -- How AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals [0.0]
  This paper is the first to describe the'speciesist bias' and investigate it in several different AI systems. It stresses the influence AI systems can have on either increasing or reducing the violence that is inflicted on animals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-22T12:23:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.