Animal language translators could benefit individual animals and increase the likelihood of species survival. Veterinarians and pet owners could better understand the needs of companion animals. Humans might develop emotional connections with animals upon listening to animal vocalizations, which might lead to more support for animal welfare issues and wildlife conservation. Scientists could warn animals of impending danger or gather health and reproductive data to aid imperiled species. With this new technology, farmed animals could convey their emotional states, leading to improved animal husbandry practices.
In addition to these potential benefits for conservation and animal welfare, the ability to engage in discourse with animals could provide additional tools for attorneys to successfully litigate and legislate for animal rights. If animals could express the extent of their pain, for example, perhaps a court would consider their pain and suffering in tort cases. Attorneys could make more compelling arguments for legal personhood by demonstrating that plaintiff animals can convey information about their social structures, intelligence, and fundamental interests. Animals could literally take the stand in court, speaking for themselves and articulating their interests in the litigation. Securing favorable legal outcomes using AI, however, requires navigating myriad practical challenges and addressing novel ethical concerns. This article examines both the opportunities and the obstacles, from the technical and legal challenges to the ethical implications of implementing AI in animal communication.
Using Artificial Intelligence to Decode Animal Language
Recent advancements in AI language processing have significantly improved our ability to understand animal communication. This progress stems from the development of more powerful models, larger datasets, and ongoing research in natural language understanding and generation. Researchers are harnessing these advancements to create systems that interpret and respond to the diverse ways animals communicate, including vocalizations, body language, and nonverbal signals. AI plays a crucial role in decoding these signals by utilizing machine-generated algorithms to identify patterns in vocalizations, including those in ultrasound and infrasound that human ears cannot detect. Additionally, AI-based image and video analysis enhances our understanding of body language and gestures of various species.
These advancements are already being applied in conservation efforts. For example, the ‘alalā, or Hawaiian crow, serves as a notable case. Following its extinction in the wild in the early 2000s, conservationists utilized AI to compare the vocalizations of captive ‘alalā with historical recordings. This research seeks to determine if critical calls related to predator awareness or courtship have been lost in captivity. Teaching these calls back to the birds could significantly improve their chance for survival upon reintroduction to the wild.
Another ambitious project, the Cetacean Translation Initiative (CETI), focuses on understanding sperm whale communication off the coast of Dominica. Researchers utilize underwater listening stations, drones, and robotic fish to gather extensive data on the social structure and communication patterns of these whales, ultimately working to minimize human impact on their populations.
Beyond cetaceans, organizations like the Earth Species Project (ESP) are leveraging AI to decode communication in a variety of species, including dolphins, elephants, and honeybees. Their mission emphasizes the transformative potential of understanding nonhuman languages for both ecological research and conservation efforts. Other studies are exploring communication in species such as dogs, bats, and prairie dogs, utilizing machine learning to reveal hidden patterns in vocalizations and behaviors. For instance, research has shown that prairie dogs use complex alarm calls to convey detailed information about predators, while studies on bat communication highlight the role of echolocation as both a navigation tool and a social mechanism.
While advancements in understanding animal communication hold great promise for species conservation efforts, they can also significantly benefit individual animal welfare. For companion animals, the ability to express their needs, health concerns, or emotional states directly to their owners or veterinarians could lead to more timely interventions and improved care. For example, if a dog could indicate pain or anxiety, owners would be better equipped to address these issues proactively, enhancing the dog’s quality of life.
The implications for captive animals are noteworthy as well. While these animals may not have the same level of individualized care as companion animals, enabling them to communicate their needs and preferences could lead to improved living conditions. For instance, if zoo animals could express stress or discomfort, staff could adjust their environments or care routines to better suit the animals’ natural behaviors and emotional needs. Similarly, in agricultural settings, understanding animals’ signals regarding their health or welfare could inform better management practices, leading to enhanced well-being for animals often subjected to restrictive conditions. Ultimately, direct communication holds the potential for more humane treatment of all animals, fostering environments that prioritize their welfare.
While fully translating animal thoughts into human language remains speculative, the progress to date raises profound questions about how we interact with animals. The ability to communicate directly with animals could fundamentally alter our understanding of their experiences, leading to new legal challenges and implications for animal rights and personhood. If AI tools can demonstrate not only that animals possess advanced cognitive capacities—such as morality or emotional intelligence—but also that they can actively communicate their needs and feelings, these insights could challenge long-standing legal frameworks that separate humans from animals. The act of communication itself, revealing animals as sentient beings capable of expressing preferences and experiences, may prompt courts and legislatures to reconsider the legal status of animals and expand their rights accordingly.
Potential Jurisprudential Benefits
The emerging ability to communicate directly with animals challenges not only how we interact with them but also long-held assumptions about their legal status and the frameworks that govern their treatment. Historically, animals were labeled as “dumb creatures”—a term reflecting intertwined beliefs: first, that animals lacked thoughts, preferences, or emotions akin to human experiences; and second, that even if such inner lives existed, animals had no meaningful way to convey them. These perceptions reinforced the notion that animals could not participate in human legal systems, justifying their treatment as property and denying them legal standing. Early animal welfare laws were thus framed to encourage human morality rather than recognizing the intrinsic value of animals’ experiences. These views continue to influence modern legal doctrines, with courts frequently denying legal standing or personhood to animals absent clear legislative intent.
The perception that animals lack meaningful cognition or communicative ability remains a significant barrier to advancing their legal status. However, AI-based research is increasingly challenging these assumptions by demonstrating that animals possess cognitive capacities previously thought to be unique to humans. If AI tools can translate animal vocalizations that express needs, emotions, and moral considerations, this evidence may compel courts and legislatures to reconsider long-held distinctions between humans and animals, resulting in a willingness to give animals their day in court.
Beyond the evidentiary benefit of revealing higher-order attributes and cognition of animals, AI holds the potential for practical advantages by establishing two-way communication with animals. For example, animals could testify to their pain and suffering resulting from an injury in a tort case. When humans or organizations assert claims on behalf of animals in legal proceedings, the animals could communicate their preferences concerning their legal representation and the claims being asserted on their behalf. Prosecutors might even seek testimony of animals in criminal trials, integrating them into the framework governing witness testimony, thereby creating legal duties and responsibilities. These potential developments could bolster arguments for legal personhood, standing to sue, and the right to legal representation for animals.
Legal personhood. Legal personhood is the status granted to entities that affords them legal rights and obligations. United States courts have been reluctant to recognize nonhuman animals as legal persons, often citing the belief that animals lack the capacity to bear legal duties and responsibilities. An illustrative case is Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny, where the Nonhuman Rights Project sought a writ of habeas corpus to remove an elephant named Happy from the Bronx Zoo. In rejecting Happy’s entitlement to habeas corpus, the New York Court of Appeals offered the following rationale:
Legal personhood is often connected with the capacity, not just to benefit from the provision of legal rights, but also to assume legal duties and social responsibilities. Unlike the human species, which has the capacity to accept social responsibilities and legal duties, nonhuman animals cannot—neither individually nor collectively—be held legally accountable or required to fulfill obligations imposed by law.
This reasoning underscores the court’s view that the capacity to bear legal responsibilities is a prerequisite for legal personhood. It highlights a fundamental distinction between humans and nonhuman animals, which has significant implications for animal rights. The court suggests that without the ability to fulfill societal obligations, animals cannot claim the legal protections that come with personhood.
As suggested earlier, AI-enabled communication could lead to a world in which animals are compelled to testify in court. Recognizing the value of animal testimony and requiring animals to testify could establish that they are assuming legal responsibilities, especially if sanctions were imposed for refusing to testify. If animal testimony in court seems too far-fetched, animals might still assume social responsibilities, such as enhancing community safety by alerting humans to impending danger or contributing to conservation efforts. The Breheny court’s justification for denying personhood status would be undermined by evidence that animals “assume legal duties and social responsibilities” through their roles as witnesses or advocates, potentially changing the outcome in future cases.
The recognition of legal personhood would open new avenues for animals in the legal system; however, even with this status, animals would still need to navigate the complexities of securing effective legal representation.
Legal representation and standing. To participate in legal proceedings, plaintiffs must have legal capacity. Minors and individuals deemed incompetent lack this capacity and must act through representatives, such as (1) legal guardians, often parents; (2) court-appointed guardians ad litem; or (3) next friends—individuals or organizations that represent someone in court without formal appointment. Animals similarly require human assistance to bring legal actions. However, courts have declined to appoint guardians for animals and have criticized efforts by next friends to act on their behalf.
A recent case in Oregon illustrates judicial reticence toward legal representation for animals. In Justice v. Vercher, the Oregon Court of Appeals considered whether a horse could bring a common law negligence per se action against his former owner. When considering whether an individual can sue on behalf of an animal, the court articulated the challenge of appointing a legal representative to an aggrieved horse:
An animal such as a horse inherently lacks self-determination and the ability to express its wishes in a manner that the legal system would recognize. That incapacity exists in perpetuity such that it would be difficult to say that a court—or any human being—may actually discern the animal’s own interests in pursuing a legal action. A person purporting to represent the interest of an animal in court necessarily projects an assumed interest onto the animal and therefore acts upon a legal fiction. That then raises the question: Who is the appropriate agent to make an assumption on behalf of an animal, to create that legal fiction?
In Justice, the court’s reasoning underscores the inherent limitations of representation; had Justice been able to communicate his interests directly, it might have been clear that he wished to hold his former owner accountable for negligence and that the next friend would represent his best interests. The court’s analysis highlights a central obstacle in animal advocacy: Without a reliable way to ascertain and convey animals’ wishes, legal representatives inevitably impose their own assumptions, complicating efforts to secure meaningful representation. If animals could articulate their interests, speculation would be unnecessary, undermining the rationale for denying legal representation and paving the way for next friend suits.
While the Justice court doubted whether any legal representative could reliably comprehend a horse’s interest in litigation, other courts have raised concerns about conflicts of interest when next friends represent animals. In Naruto v. Slater, a case dismissing copyright infringement claims brought on behalf of a monkey by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the concurring opinion expressed skepticism about PETA’s role as next friend:
We are really asking what another species desires. Do animals want to own property, such as copyrights? Are animals willing to assume the duties associated with the rights PETA seems to be advancing on their behalf? . . . Because the “real party in interest” can actually never credibly articulate its interests or goals, next-friend standing for animals is left at the mercy of the institutional actor to advance its own interests, which it imputes to the animal or object with no accountability.
This highlights the inherent challenges and limitations of relying on next friends to advocate for animals, as it suggests that without the animals’ own voices, the motivations and objectives of human advocates may overshadow the true interests of the animals they aim to represent. If animals could directly communicate their interests, these judicial concerns about self-appointed next friends would be greatly reduced, potentially removing this barrier from future animal litigation. However, despite the potential benefits of animal communication in addressing these representation issues, significant legal and practical challenges remain that must be navigated to effectively incorporate such innovations into the courtroom.
Legal and Practical Challenges in Using Animal Communication in Court
Some may be skeptical about how AI-animal communication could function in legal contexts. Inherent difficulties in communicating with animals stem from their different cognitive processes compared to humans. Animals often engage with their environments through instinctual responses and learned behaviors rather than through abstract reasoning. This disparity complicates our understanding of what animals can comprehend, as their cognitive processes often do not align with human concepts. Logistical challenges arise from these differences, but many viable solutions exist. The following are key challenges and potential strategies for addressing them.
Competency. To be considered legally competent, a witness must typically (1) recognize the necessity of telling the truth, (2) possess personal knowledge and recollection of relevant events, and (3) communicate that knowledge to the court. In addition to competency, witnesses are generally required to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they are telling the truth. Although these requirements may seem insurmountable for animals, precedents exist. Courts routinely assess the competency of minors and individuals with diminished capacity, ensuring they understand the difference between truths and lies. Similar frameworks could be developed for animals, particularly with the assistance of AI translators capable of facilitating clear communication.
Guardianship. Animals would require human representation in legal proceedings, including access to necessary technology and interpretive assistance. Courts would need to appoint guardians who could act in the best interests of the animals. The ability for animals to communicate directly with the court would help determine the most appropriate guardianship arrangements, ensuring their needs and preferences are adequately represented.
Animal translation. Establishing a reliable mechanism for human-to-animal translation would be crucial for any animal testimony. This technology must be accurate, secure, and resistant to manipulation. Just as courts certify interpreters for American Sign Language (ASL) or foreign languages, a similar certification could be developed for animal interpreters. This certification would ensure proficiency with the technology and specific animal language, as well as provide training to mitigate subconscious bias toward the animals. Unlike human-language translation, animal-language interpretation may involve more nuanced interactive communication between the interpreter and the animal. The introduction of greater subjectivity raises the question of whether the animal-language interpreter would operate in the capacity of an expert witness, requiring each party to have its own interpreter to ensure impartiality.
Testimony. Several practical challenges arise with animals providing testimony. The court may struggle to assess the animals’ credibility due to anthropocentric perspectives. Humans’ credibility assessments rely on demeanor, body language, and tone-of-voice methods that may not translate well to animal behavior. Until AI technology advances sufficiently to detect credibility in animals, courts may need to rely on other factors like consistency in testimony or corroboration with other witnesses.
Additionally, logistical concerns arise regarding the physical presence of animals in courtrooms. While some animals could be brought into the courtroom, larger or more habitat-dependent animals may require alternative arrangements. Just as accommodations exist for minors or developmentally disabled individuals to testify outside of the courtroom, similar measures could be extended to animals, allowing for their needs and comfort to be prioritized during legal proceedings.
While the integration of animal communication technology in legal proceedings presents numerous challenges, it also raises significant ethical questions that must be carefully considered. Understanding these ethical dimensions will help guide the responsible development and application of such technologies.
Ethical Considerations Arising from Using Animal Communication Technology
Despite ongoing research into AI-assisted animal communication, ethical implications have received relatively little attention. As researchers explore AI’s ability to facilitate interspecies dialogue, critical questions arise concerning animal privacy, consent, and human moral responsibilities. This reflects a broader pattern in AI research, where ethics often lag behind technological progress. A thorough examination of these concerns is necessary to understand the impact of using animal communication technology.
Privacy concerns. Does using AI to intercept animal communication infringe on animal privacy? The use of AI to intercept and interpret animal communication raises significant ethical questions about the nature of privacy for animals. Privacy often entails control over personal information and autonomy—concepts traditionally reserved for humans. When we engage in animal communication research, are we not eavesdropping on their private thoughts and conversations? Just as human privacy laws protect individuals from unauthorized monitoring and exploitation, animals may have a moral right to privacy, even if they cannot consent to technological interventions. This possibility calls for a rethinking of our ethical frameworks as AI plays a greater role in shaping human-animal interactions.
Compulsion to communicate. Are animals further deprived of autonomy by being compelled to engage in interspecies communication? Technologies designed to foster communication may inadvertently compel animals to engage in ways that do not align with their preferences. In research or captive environments, animals might be pressured to respond to human cues, compromising their autonomy and well-being. These forced interactions raise ethical concerns about authenticity, as animals may act according to expectations rather than express genuine needs. Respecting an animal’s choice to participate in—or abstain from—communication is essential for ethical treatment.
Duty of translation. Does the development of animal translators create a societal obligation to provide translation services for all animals, akin to obligations for foreign-language speakers? As technology progresses, the potential for animal translators raises essential ethical questions about our responsibilities toward animals and whether we should ensure equitable access to translation services for all species.
Obligation to honor communication. Should humans be ethically obligated to heed the preferences communicated by animals? For example, what if animals in zoos communicate a desire to be released, or if research animals convey distress and a wish to escape laboratory conditions? What if companion animals express dissatisfaction with their food or a desire for different living arrangements? These scenarios challenge us to consider the extent of our moral responsibilities when animals articulate their interests, raising difficult questions about how far society is willing to go in recognizing and acting on these messages.
Welfare versus conservation. How do we balance animal welfare and conservation goals when they do not align? Striking a balance between animal welfare and conservation can be challenging, particularly when conservation strategies may inadvertently harm individual animals or disrupt their natural behaviors.
Nonharmful communication. How can we ensure that the development of AI-assisted communication technologies does not inadvertently harm animals? Researchers must be acutely aware of the risks that arise during these studies, particularly the potential misinterpretation of synthetic animal signals that could disrupt natural behaviors and social structures among animal populations. For instance, introducing artificial whale songs might unintentionally influence migration patterns or social dynamics within a population. Researchers must prioritize ethical safeguards to avoid exposing animals to confusion, stress, or unintended consequences.
Exploitation minimization. What is our duty to minimize commercial or other manipulation or exploitation of animals once humans can communicate with them? The potential for humans to exert influence over animal behavior through AI communication technology—be it for entertainment, research, or profit—could lead to numerous forms of manipulation and exploitation. For example, poachers could use AI-generated vocalizations to lure target species, increasing their effectiveness in capturing or killing wildlife, or animals could be weaponized or trained for harmful tasks. Additionally, the commercialization of animal communication could lead to the commodification of animal voices, as companies exploit this technology for profit through targeted marketing strategies based on artificial insights into animal preferences, while simultaneously using AI-driven entertainment to coerce animals into performing for profit.
Ends versus means. Does studying animals in captivity justify increased confinement for research purposes? While captivity may offer opportunities for closer study, it also raises serious ethical concerns about animal welfare. Researchers must critically evaluate whether the knowledge gained outweighs the potential harm, and whether alternative, noninvasive methods could achieve similar outcomes.
Animal justice systems. Should humans impose their justice systems upon other species? Utilizing animals within an anthropocentric legal system disregards the existence of animal justice systems, raising the question of whether humans have a moral obligation to engage with these nonhuman frameworks. If we expect animals to adhere to human legal frameworks, it raises a moral imperative to explore the possibility of submitting ourselves to their justice systems as well. By acknowledging and understanding these nonhuman frameworks, we can better appreciate the complexities of animal agency and the ethical implications of our interactions with them. This reflection challenges us to rethink our roles and responsibilities in a shared ethical landscape.
The exploration of ethical considerations surrounding AI-assisted animal communication is not merely an academic exercise; it has real-world implications for how we interact with and understand animals. As we stand on the brink of potentially transformative technological advancements, it is imperative that we critically assess our moral obligations toward animals and the ramifications of our actions.
Balancing Innovation and Responsibility in Animal Communication Technology
AI innovations offer an exciting opportunity to communicate with animals, potentially advancing conservation efforts and improving animal welfare. Understanding animals’ preferences could also enhance legal advocacy for their rights. Implementing these technologies comes with challenges, however. Courts and legislatures may borrow practices from systems used for minors or people with limited capacity, but ethical concerns remain complex.
Researchers and end users must proceed with caution, limiting the use of captive animals and minimizing unintended social or environmental consequences. For instance, synthetic sounds should not disrupt natural behaviors or social dynamics. The misuse of animal translators for exploitation or harm must be avoided, as these technologies could increase the risk of manipulation.
The development of best practice guidelines and appropriate legislative frameworks is essential to ensure that AI tools are used responsibly. Striking a balance between curiosity and responsibility is necessary to safeguard animals’ autonomy and dignity. Current AI guidelines have not yet fully addressed these issues, but doing so is critical to prevent harm and promote ethical interactions with animals through technology.
