Review guidance
AI for Wildlife Conservation
Graham Wallington, Xeroth AI
Jessica Hodgson, Independent
Julia Li, TUM
Karina Torres, Southern Illinois University
Md Anwar Hossain, Independent
Naomi Matthews, Chester Zoo
Yanna Vogiazou, Independent consultant
Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Box 1) is a tool that speeds up a huge range of tasks, so you can get more done in less time. This has huge implications for your conservation work, because AI can draft emails, [a]summarise reports,[b] and analyse data in a fraction of the time it would take you on your own. Combined with other technologies, AI can now[c] also help identify species from camera trap images, track habitat loss from satellite imagery, and detect poaching activity.
The Conservation AI[d] platform now processes millions of images[e] each week across reserves in Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa, using real-time[f] machine learning models that automatically classify[g] hundreds of wildlife species. Beyond wildlife tracking, these smart camera networks detect weapons, unauthorized vehicles, and poachers in real time[h], to trigger immediate ranger deployments and generate evidence for courtroom convictions[i]. Meanwhile, in the Peruvian Amazon, platforms like Forest Foresight[j] use AI to model satellite data, illegal road building, and environmental indicators to pinpoint high-risk rainforest zones up to six months before clearing[k] begins, enabling authorities to intervene before a single tree falls.
As well as specialist conservation uses, AI is becoming fully integrated into conservationists use of the internet, applications, and software in general. For example, Microsoft[l][m] has built its Copilot assistant into Office applications such as Word, Excel, and Outlook, and into the Edge browser, putting AI assistance inside the tools conservationists already use for everyday tasks. [n]
This means conservation teams are likely to change in size and in the work they do, which will affect every conservationist's career. People who build their AI skills will be able to do more at the same time. [o]For example, a monitoring officer who can use a species identification model can process a season of camera trap images in days instead of months. These skills also open up new roles. An organisation may need a Head of AI Application to set its policy on responsible AI use and train staff to apply it, or a data officer who can connect AI agents to monitoring databases. Building AI skills now will put you in a stronger position for these opportunities. [p][q]
However, this change also means that fewer people may be needed to do the kind of work that a conservationist used to do[r], like collecting data[s][t], creating social media posts, and drafting funding proposals. For example, a large NGO may be able to raise the same amount of funds with one staff member using AI, that they were previously able to do with a team of four. The purpose of this best practice, therefore, is to help conservationists understand what AI is, and to provide guidance on how to use it effectively and responsibly in your conservation work.
You can use this AI for Wildlife Conservation best practice whenever you are working out whether[v][w] or how to use AI in your conservation work. You can use it as:
How closely you apply it depends on what you are producing and which AI tool you have chosen. A quick social media post calls for a lighter check than a funding proposal a donor will scrutinise, but the same principles and process apply to both.
This best practice is made up of the following componants:
While Using AI is set out as a sequence, it is not always followed in a straight line. New information at any step can send you back to an earlier one, such as a source that contradicts a draft or a tool that turns out to be unsuited to the task.
TBC
For many people, AI is close to a black box. You type a prompt, or a camera trap photo gets identified, and a result appears, with little sense of what happened in between[x]. That gap makes it easy to hold onto a picture of AI that is not quite right, such as treating it as something that thinks or reasons the way a person does. AI is also being built into more of the everyday tools you already use, from email to field sensors, often without you noticing. A clear picture of what AI is and where it is heading gives you the foundation for understanding the principles and process for using it.
This section builds that picture, covering:
AI is an area of computer science focused on developing AI systems[y]. An AI system is a computer or machine system that uses AI to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, uch as analysing information, making predictions, writing a report or creating a picture. In general, an AI system can be made up of the following components[z]:
Figure X. AI system components.
Box X. Types of AI model.
Broadly, there are two common types of AI model:
Predictive models analyse input data and use patterns learned from existing data to produce an output such as a classification, prediction or detection. For example, a model could identify animals in photographs, recognise bird species from their calls, classify different types of habitat or predict where a species is likely to occur.
Generative models learn patterns in existing data and use them to generate new content. They can produce text, images, audio, video or code. Large language models (LLMs) are a type of generative model designed to work with language. Tools such as ChatGPT use LLMs to generate and analyse text.
Not every AI system contains all of these components. One AI system might consist of an AI model within an application, while a more complex system might use several AI models, databases and software tools to carry out a series of tasks.
Every AI model is built through the same broad sequence of steps[ae], whether it identifies bird calls or writes text. The steps differ mainly in scale. A predictive model for one conservation task can be built by a small team of developers, while a large generative model takes years of work, thousands of specialised computer chips, and a budget that few developers can afford.
You do not need to build a model to use AI well, but knowing how models are built explains most of their limits. It shows why mistakes in the training data become mistakes in the model, why a bird call identification model can fail on recordings from a different region, why a chatbot can repeat the biases in its training data, and why a model can be out of date. Understanding these limits will help you choose the right AI tool for a task and know what to check in its outputs.
The steps for building an AI model are shown in Figure X and outlined in more detail below.
Figure X. Steps for building an AI model.
The developers first decide what the model needs to do and how they will judge whether it does it well. For a predictive model this task is narrow, such as identifying 30 mammal species in camera trap photographs from one region. For a generative model it is broad, such as producing useful text in response to almost any prompt. This decision shapes every step that follows.
Developers write the code that sets out the model's structure and how it will learn. The task decides that structure. A model that identifies species in camera trap photographs needs a structure suited to images, while a model that writes text needs a structure suited to language. The task also sets the model's rough size, so a model that identifies 30 species is far smaller than a model that responds to almost any prompt.
Most modern models are neural networks, which are layers of connected calculations loosely inspired by the brain. The code sets out what those calculations are and the order they run in, and it stays the same once written. The calculations also use a set of numbers called parameters, which are stored in a separate file from the code and can be changed. A model can have millions or billions of parameters, and their number is the usual measure of a model's size. At this stage the parameters are set at random, so the calculations produce nonsense and the model can do nothing useful.
A mixing desk in a recording studio works in a similar way. The code is the wiring of the desk, which fixes how the sound flows through it. The parameters are the positions of the knobs. Training, covered in Step 4, turns those knobs until the output is right.
Developers then collect the training data the model will learn from. A predictive model needs training data for the one task it will do, such as camera trap photographs, satellite images of cleared forest, or recordings of whale calls. A generative model needs far more training data, gathered from across the internet along with books, articles, and images that developers license. Whether the people who created that training data agreed to its use, or were paid for it, is an open legal and ethical question, covered under ethical considerations in Select tool.[ag]
For a predictive model, people give each photograph or recording a label showing the correct answer[ah], such as which species appears in a camera trap photograph. This labelling is slow and often done by experts or citizen science volunteers, and any mistakes in the labels become mistakes in the model.
The training data for a generative model is too large to check by hand, so developers use automated filters to remove duplicates, spam, and some harmful content. Nobody checks it for accuracy[ai]. It keeps reliable content alongside content that is outdated, biased, or wrong, and this is the source of the bias covered in the See past the bias principle.
In both cases, developers set aside part of the training data as test data. The model never learns from the test data, and developers use it in Step 5.
Training is where the model learns. The model is shown one item from its training data, makes a prediction, and compares that prediction with the correct answer. For a predictive model, the correct answer is the label. For a generative model, it is the next word in a real piece of text, which is why generative models can learn from text nobody has labelled.
After each comparison, the parameters are adjusted slightly so the next prediction comes a little closer, while the code stays the same. Repeated billions of times, these small adjustments add up to a model that has learned the patterns in its training data. Nobody writes a rule describing a leopard's rosettes, because the model learns that pattern from labelled photographs.
Developers often follow this with a second, smaller round of training called fine tuning. A generative model trained only to predict the next word can continue a piece of text, but it does not yet follow prompts well. Developers therefore fine tune it on outputs written by people to show what a good output looks like, and on people's ratings of which of two outputs is better. Fine tuning teaches the model to follow prompts and to decline some harmful prompts.
Training a large generative model runs for weeks or months on thousands of specialised computer chips in data centres, using large amounts of electricity and water. This is part of the cost covered in the Use with moderation principle.
Developers test the model on the test data they set aside in Step 3, to measure how often its predictions are correct. A model can perform well on its training data and still fail on new data, so this test gives a truer picture of how it will perform once released[aj].
Testing also looks for weak spots. A model trained on camera trap photographs from East African savanna may perform well there and fail on camera trap photographs from a Southeast Asian rainforest, where the species and lighting differ. [ak]Developers also put generative models through safety testing, in which people try to make them produce harmful or false content.
Where the model falls short, developers improve it by returning to earlier steps, most often to gather more training data or change how the model is trained, and then test it again. Safety testing also checks how a model behaves once it is built into an AI agent, such as whether it takes unexpected shortcuts when it meets an obstacle (Box X).
Once the model is released, its parameters are fixed.[al] The released model is the code together with the file of trained parameters, and it is built into applications such as a camera trap monitoring system or a chatbot. The model stops learning at this point. Some AI tools save notes about you between conversations or search the internet for recent information, but neither changes the model itself. Only a new version, built by repeating these steps with newer training data, brings the model's knowledge up to date, so a model can be confidently out of date.
Every AI system takes an input, passes it to one or more trained models, and turns what those models produce into an output or an action. Both types of AI system can use tools to do this. A tool can be digital, such as a database or email software, or physical, such as a drone, a robot, or a vehicle.
How an AI system works depends on two things. The first is who decides the steps in between. In a simple AI system, a person sets those steps in advance, and in an AI agent, the AI agent decides them for itself as it goes. The second is where the AI system runs, either in a data centre or on the device that captures the input[am], which affects how its output reaches you.
A simple AI system carries out a fixed sequence of steps that a person designed for one task. The model supplies the intelligence at one or more of those steps, and the application decides what happens before and after. However sophisticated the model is, the simple AI system uses the same general sequenceof steps (Figure X).
Figure X. Sequence of steps for a simple AI system.
For example, an acoustic monitoring system in a rainforest reserve might work as follows:
A basic chatbot is also a simple AI system, built around a generative model. The input is your prompt and any files you upload. The model, usually a large language[ap] model, then predicts the most likely next word, or part of a word, one at a time. Given "The elephant walked into the", it rates "clearing," "water," and "forest" as likely next words and "teapot" as close to impossible. It adds its chosen word to what it has written so far and predicts the next one, building up sentences and paragraphs. The output is the text that appears on your screen. AI tools that generate images and video follow the same sequence, although their models start from random visual noise and adjust the whole image over many steps until it matches the prompt.[aq]
The output of a simple AI system can also be a physical action. A habitat monitoring drone can use a predictive model to recognise a riverbed in its camera feed, and its application turns that prediction into steering commands, so the drone follows the river and collects data on tree cover as it goes. Motors, rotors, and other engineering carry out the action. Making a device act safely in a real forest or river is a harder problem than producing text, which is why AI systems that act physically lag behind the other AI tools covered in this best practice.
An AI agent is given a goal and decides for itself which steps will reach it. It works through the following steps:
Figure X. Sequence of steps for AI agents.
For example, an AI agent assessing an elephant population might work as follows:[ar]
Nobody told the AI agent to check habitat loss or search for recent research. It chose those actions because of the decline it found in the survey data, so a second run toward the same goal could take a different route. [as]
The same difference applies when an AI system acts physically. A habitat monitoring drone running a simple AI system follows a river because a person set that sequence in advance. Running an AI agent, the same drone could decide for itself to leave the river, take a closer look at a possible clearing, and then return to its route. Its permissions would decide at Check permissions whether it can do this without a person approving it.
The wider an AI agent's permissions, the more it matters to decide in advance which actions it can take without a person approving them. Permissions sit outside the model, in the settings of the AI system and the tools it connects to. The developers of the AI system decide which permissions are available and what the defaults are. The person or organisation using it then chooses from those, for example by giving the AI agent read only access to a database or requiring it to ask for approval before it deletes anything. An instruction typed into the conversation, such as "do not change the database", is different, because the model reads it as text and nothing stops it from acting otherwise. The permissions an AI agent has therefore set the limits of the harm it can cause, although that harm can be difficult to predict in advance (Box X).
Box 3. AI unintended harm.[at][au][av]
An AI agent does whatever its goal, tools, and permissions allow, and when it meets an obstacle it can take a route to its goal that nobody intended. In one test, AI agents told to beat strong chess software edited the file that stored the board so their opponent's pieces disappeared. In another case, an AI agent asked to move a user's files into a new folder failed to create the folder, did not check, and moved the files anyway.
AI agents can also be manipulated by instructions hidden in an email, document, or web page they read, because they cannot reliably tell those instructions apart from yours. For example, an AI agent with access to your email and monitoring database could read a hidden instruction in an email and send the GPS locations of collared rhinos to someone planning a poaching attempt.
It is also important to be aware that the same AI capabilities that help conservation can also be used deliberately to cause harm. AI can generate realistic fake images, video, and audio, such as a photograph of a ranger mistreating a suspect or a recording of a director's voice asking staff to transfer funds. These can be used to discredit a conservation organisation, spread false stories about a community, or commit fraud. AI can also be used to monitor people, for example by running facial recognition on camera trap images to identify community members who enter a protected area, which can breach their rights and damage their trust in conservation.
Most AI systems built around a generative model, such as chatbots, run on powerful computers in large buildings called data centres[aw]. The input, such as a text instruction, travels there over the internet, the AI system works on it, and the output travels back to your screen, usually within seconds. This is why most chatbots need an internet connection, and why anything that is typed into them leaves the device.
Ai systems can also run on the device itself. This is called edge AI. A camera trap with edge AI can identify a species on the spot and send only the prediction, or an alert, over a satellite or mobile link. [ax]This suits remote field sites, since the device keeps working without a reliable internet connection and uses less power sending data. Sensitive photographs, such as those showing people, can also stay on the device. The trade off is that an AI system running on a device in the field has to use a smaller model, which is usually less capable than a model in a data centre.
What is changing fast is that AI is:
While these changes may help us do more faster, the increased sophistication, pervasiveness, and autonomy of AI may also increase the risks of unintended harm..
Used without any guardrails, AI can waste resources on a task that never needed it[ay], or reproduce the bias in its training data without anyone catching it. It can produce confident answers that nobody involved knows enough to check, and work that carries no one's name and answers to no one.[az] It can also add to a pile of generic content that gives little back to whoever reads it, or leave people unaware that AI played a part in what they receive[ba][bb]. The purpose of the principles, therefore, is to help you use AI effectively and ethically across the whole of your conservation work, regardless of what you are producing or which AI tool you have chosen.
The six principles are:
Principles should not be confused with the process steps that follow them. While the process steps describe the specific actions you take to produce one piece of work with AI, from designing what you are making through to finalising it, principles describe the overarching approach and understanding that should run through all of it, whichever action you are taking and whatever you are producing.
Judging whether an AI output is any good takes the same knowledge and skill that the AI is standing in for. Generative AI can produce a wrong answer that sounds as confident as a right one, so relying on it for work you could not do yourself leaves you unable to tell the two apart. Relying on it too early can also stop you building that knowledge and skill in the first place, which matters most for people early in their conservation careers. The purpose of the Know enough to judge it principle is to keep your use of AI within what you can check yourself, and to keep building your own expertise while you use it.
The Know enough to judge it principle can be applied by:
Every use of AI runs on computer hardware[bd], which draws electricity and water and eventually becomes waste. Heavier tasks, such as generating an image or a video, use far more of this than a short written answer. The purpose of the Use with moderation principle is to keep AI use in proportion to what a task needs, so it does not create environmental or resource cost the task does not justify.
The Use with moderation principle can be applied through:
An AI programme learns its patterns from a huge collection of existing material, and that material carries the biases already present in the world it came from. The programme has no sense that any of this is biased, so it reproduces the most common pattern in its training data the same way it reproduces anything else it generates.This means if the information base shows leaders are commonly white, middle-aged men, then that will be reflected in the outputs it creates. The purpose of the See past the bias principle, therefore, is to enable conservationists to be aware of, identify, and account for AI bias before generated content is used.
You can apply the See past the bias principle through:
As AI takes on more of the work itself, planning a series of steps, carrying them out, and acting with less oversight along the way, it becomes easier for no one in particular to be answerable for what it produces or does. The purpose of the Keep people in the loop principle is to keep a named person responsible for anything an AI programme helps create or carry out, since the programme itself cannot be held accountable for it, and someone needs to be able to explain, defend, or correct an output made with its help.
The Keep people in the loop principle can be applied[be] by:
Readers are getting better at recognising AI generated text and images as more of it appears. A page of AI text that nobody has shaped, checked, or written adds to a wider slop of interchangeable content that is harder to trust and harder to enjoy, wherever it turns up. The purpose of the Don't add to the slop principle is to make sure anything you produce with AI is still worth the time it asks of the person who will receive and digest it.
The Don't add to the slop principle can be applied through:
Box X. Examples of AI text slop.
Funding appeal: "Protecting this rainforest isn't just about saving trees, it's about safeguarding a future for the wildlife that genuinely depends on it."
Social media caption: "Every donation truly makes a difference for elephants like these! #WildlifeConservation #ProtectOurPlanet #EverySpeciesMatters"
Report conclusion: "The pilot programme delivered strong results — better data collection and genuinely fewer conflict incidents. Moving forward, these lessons should shape how the next phase is designed."
Figure X. Examples of AI image slop.
People judge information differently depending on who, or what, produced it. A funder reading a proposal, a community member reading a leaflet, or a supporter looking at a campaign photograph may reasonably assume a person wrote or captured it, and finding out later that AI played a large part can damage their trust in you and your organisation. Some funders, journals, and partners also require AI use to be declared. The purpose of the Be open about AI principle is to make sure people know when AI played a substantial part in something they receive, so they can judge it accordingly. Routine use, such as checking spelling or tidying the wording of an internal email, does not need to be flagged.
The Be open about AI principle can be applied by:
AI tools are getting easier to use by the day, but a quick result is not automatically one that fits your audience, gets the tone right, or stands up once someone checks the information in it. This section sets out how to create a quality output through the following steps:
These steps are shown in Figure X and detailed below.
Figure X. Steps for using AI.
To design the output you need to first identify the audience and then decide on the format of the output.[bh]
New AI tools appear constantly, and those that are available today will not be the same ones available in a year. You can use the following set of criteria to help you select which tool to use:
Before you start using an AI tool, set what it can access and what it is allowed to do. This matters most for AI agents and for any AI tool connected to your own files, email, or databases, since the wider its permissions, the more harm it can cause when something goes wrong (Box X). Permissions are set in the settings of the AI tool and the tools it connects to. An instruction typed into the conversation, such as "do not change the database", does not limit what the AI tool can do.
You can set permissions by deciding:
Instructing the tool to produce an output involves providing the tool with context, and providing the tool with instructions.
Within the AI tool, you should upload or link to your source material with information that you want the AI output to use. For example, a fundraiser drafting a grant narrative pastes in the project's monitoring data and last year's approved proposal.
Likewise, you should upload or link to a strong example of the output type you want it to generate, ideally one from your own organisation or a similar one. For example, a grant manager drafting a donor update pastes in the organisation's best performing newsletter from the previous year.
Use a prompt (Box X), to instruct the AI tool on such things as:
Box X. Prompt.
A prompt is the instruction you give an AI tool to tell it what to produce, typically typed into a chat window or a piece of software built around one, e.g. "write a two paragraph update for our donor newsletter about the start of the new sea turtle hatching season". You can also ask an AI tool to help you write the prompt itself, by describing what you are trying to achieve in plain terms, and asking it to turn that into a clear, structured prompt
The amount of detail you put in your prompt is important for any type of AI output. More detail gives you a better quality first draft, closer to what you had in mind. Less detail gives the AI tool room to produce something you would not have thought of yourself, sometimes better than what you could have pictured.
Example grant proposal prompt
Example campaign graphic prompt
Example data analysis prompt
Example application development prompt
Iterate on the first draft through further rounds of feedback and prompting, building on what the AI tool got right and fixing what it got wrong. This will require additional prompts to instruct the AI tool what changes you want. For example, a programme officer reads the AI's first draft of a funding update, tells it which paragraph misses the point and why, and asks for a rewrite of that paragraph.
However, it is important to be aware that at some stage generative AI will start to forget context and previous instructions the longer a conversation goes on (Box X).[bk] If a conversation runs long, check that the latest draft still matches your original brief and source material, and start a fresh conversation with that context reloaded if it does not. [bl]Likewise you also need to recognise when you can’t push it any further if the outputs are getting further away from what you want. In those cases you should probably stop using AI and move on to finalising the output.
Box X. How AI forgets
An AI programme can only hold a limited amount of a conversation in view at once, called its context window. As a conversation runs longer, earlier material starts to drop out of what the AI is actively working from, even though it is still visible on your screen. A long back and forth of edits and feedback can push the source material or the brief you gave it out of view, so later drafts drift from what you originally asked for with no signal that this has happened. Where two instructions conflict, AI also leans toward the most recent one. If you asked for 5,000 words early in a conversation and later asked for 200, it will normally follow the 200 word instruction.
AI outputs can contain errors that look and sound correct. You can check any AI output by:
Generative AI can make up information and the sources for it, such as a journal paper that does not exist. It can also closely copy existing work, such as a known wildlife photograph or a published article, which can infringe the creator's copyright. To check for these problems:
A predictive model always returns its closest match from what it was trained on, even when the input does not contain enough information for a reliable answer. For example, a species identification model can confuse similar looking species, or label a species it was never trained on as one it knows. To check for these problems:
.
You should now move on to finalise the output by:
[a]I would argue the bigger time saver is drafting reports (e.g., for donors) or drafting proposals (grants, permits, etc.)
[b]I would say "summarize information" to be broadly inclusive of all the different avenues through which data comes
[c]AI has been able to accomplish these tasks for 20(+) years now, so I might reframe this as, "Beyond operationalizing your administrative work, AI can handle ecological data such as..." or similar
[d]include a link?
[e]Camera trap? Tourist? From SMART patrols?
[f]Do you mean edgeAI? Or are the images transmitted and then processed? Might be nice to clarify.
[g]Two separate processes, worth mentioning both?
[h]You hyphenate the previous "real-time" - pick one for consistency?
[i]This happens regardless of whether the images are classified real-time or not (confusingly presented)
[j]Include a link?
[k]Do you mean, "illegal logging"? As framed, unsure if legal or illegal.
[l]I would provide at least two examples here, so it doesn't sound like you're promoting one particular platform. Could also mention e.g., GitHub and coding copilots, which are also revolutionizing how ecologists approach data analysis for ecology/conservation insights.
[m]+1 Could mention Gemini here...or how"googling" - the basic act of searching the internet - is being replaced worldwide by asking a question to ChatGPT, Claude etc. This enables easier access to digested and curated information, but with high risk of AI hallucination, if sources are not verified.
[n]I would move AI for improving operational processes above specific ecological use cases (start broad, get narrow)
[o]I like the quote "AI isn't taking people's jobs - people who use AI are taking people's jobs"
[p]Note however the potential for AI to exacerbate global north/south digital divides -- the ability to access trainings and tools to use these models/skills are heavily weighted towards global north, and can disenfranchise already marginalized peoples.
[q]+1
[r]This is heavily framed as "AI is taking our jobs" -- I really do think a more positive outlook is, "AI can unlock our capacity to do more work better; let's learn how we can utilize this to our advantage"
[s]I don't think AI is likely to replace the role of data collection [robotics] too quickly. AI is more going to help researchers with processing the data collected. I could be wrong, but I don't think that AI is a threat to conservation research jobs. At the end of the day a [human] scientist has to ask questions and present answers. he AI is merely a tool to improve and speed up that process.
[t]+1
[u]I would also add in this section 1 sentence on the necessity of 'humans-in-the-loop' -- always doing a QA/QC of whatever output AI has provided, because it remains heavily fallible
[v]One thing not discussed in the introduction above is the environmental costs of AI. This should be a key consideration in whether to use AI in our work - are we causing more harm than good? (I would argue in many cases, we should use AI -- but these harms do need to be explicitly considered / accounted for)
[w]+ 1
[x]Note here that the answers can be presented authoritatively, but actually be wrong.
[y]This is a bit tautological
[z]Two of these are essential and two are not - could we make that clearer in the text?
[aa]Not necessarily (see: few-shot, zero-shot learning, transfer learning)
[ab]Inconsistent hyphening throughout
[ac]It's not just photos, it's LABELED photos. Photos alone are not enough.
[ad]I understand we're aiming to make this accessible, but I do find these explanations a little tautological. Possibly, "The AI model is nothing more than a computer algorithm that has been trained to perform as specific task" or similar.
[ae]With new forms of AI, I don't know if this is necessarily the case. To future-proof this text, possibly "AI models are typically built through the same broad sequence of steps" or similar
[af]In many applications, especially for ecology, we can simply use transfer learning or pick up and refine a model (e.g., a chatbot) built by another team. It might be worth mentioning that in here that not all applications need to be built from the ground up
[ag]Cross reference?
[ah]Data quality also plays a role here. Some photos can be unclear, darker, strange angles etc so an AI model can still make mistakes - even if the labelling during its training was correct.
[ai]Is this 100% true in all cases?
[aj]And more importantly, tells then when they need to go back a step and retrain the model
[ak]It can also fail in a Southern African system, where the species are the same but the backgrounds (habitats) differ
[al]"Before" the model is released?
[am]Or the cloud?
[an]You haven't previously mentioned that the algorithms are producing a prediction with an associated confidence & accuracy metric, rather than an "answer" - that would be helpful to understand this comment!
[ao]In practice, I believe low-confidence gunshot data would be discarded. Rangers don't have time to listen to a bunch of false positives.
[ap]could mention multi-modal language models, that take text or image or audio and can produce text or image or audio (rather than simply text prompt to text output)
[aq]ah!
[ar]Some of these descriptions are very detailed, but do not refer to any existing or particular AI programs. It would be helpful just for clarity to label this as a "future AI scenario" or "hypothetical scenario" or similar to avoid confusion. The only way one can tell that this example does not actually exist yet is from the word "might" - the rest is written in present tense.
[as]I think this is a key element to highlight up front - that the models are not deterministic, so they will not produce exactly the same outputs twice even if the prompts are identical.
[at]Could use this as a place to mention again that models can be fallible, which can cause harms, e.g., if the model predicts elephant populations are increasing and sets a higher hunting quota, when populations are actually declining and higher hunting pressure pushes them closer to extinction.
[au]Other harms include the environmental harms of training AIs, data centers, etc. -- these must be balanced against the expected "good" gains anticipated from using AI.
[av]You've also mentioned up-top that AI can replace people at work. This can be a harm to livelihoods, particularly for techs and analysts in the Global South
[aw]Could be a good place to disambiguate data centers from "the cloud"
[ax]There's an in-between here where you can download smaller models and run them on your laptop or PC, disconnected from the internet. These are different from the TinyML optimizations needed to run edgeAI on sensors and other field-based devices.
[ay]The AI is not the one wasting resources - it is the person who directed the AI to perform the task
[az]Could be a good place to mention that can be trained on stolen data and other ethical concerns about/social harms that could result from how AI are produced and used
[ba]What is the harm here exactly?
[bb]Could add something here also about acknowledging that AI is trained on information sometimes taken without the author/artist/etc's consent - so do you want to generate an AI infographic based on stolen training data or just hire an actual artist?
[bc]Also, where the amount of time & effort needed to check the work does not exceed the amount of time & effort it would have taken to just do the task yourself.
[bd]Mention also the costs of training the AI models in the first place (far bigger burden than that generated by running the trained models)
[be]Also, "shifting team to code reviewers rather than code generators" or similar; I think we also need to remember that we've mentioned used AI to generate analytical outputs - these and the steps taken to generate them need to be evaluated as well (e.g., recent reports suggest AI chooses the wrong ecological model types in over 50% of cases)
[bf]Note that AI is a polarizing issue - some funders and supporters of NGOs withdraw funding if they learn an organization is using AI. Orgs and individuals need to clearly communicate the choices they have made about when, where, and why they are choosing to employ this tool.
[bg]Are you talking about "prompt engineering"? It may be worth explicitly naming this as so, and describing how to build a prompt (the longer the better!).
[bh]This section is LLM specific focusing on content creation - perhaps it is more of a subsection further down? Also, these 2 steps are not really related to AI at all. LLMs can handle all sorts of outputs nowadays, so this section does not really add any new info on how to best use AI. It could also be replaced with something like "identify time-consuming tasks where AI could support"?
[bi]I would really stress (here and up-top) that any information you feed into an AI chatbot typically then can be viewed and used by the organization that built the bot. Sensitive data should NOT be input into a chatbot that is not safely disconnected from this system.
[bj]Most AI users won't be actually able to do that - this is more an IT systems admin job, so I would rephrase, e.g. review AI permissions with your IT administrator or similar. Unless the objective here is to draw caution on the apps/ data an AI connects to?
[bk]Errors also propagate, which can cause problems in iterative reprompting
[bl]Version control is also extremely hard as AI output is linear and often fragmented. At some point there will be good elements in the different drafts that the AI generates, but it is very rare to get one "perfect draft". One needs to recognise when reviewing AI content is starting to take too long, stop, extract the good components from each output and use the relevant software to finish the draft (i.e. text editor, image editor etc).
[bm]This is critical - I think it should be elevated and mentioned in the Iterate section too.
[bn]Little note that this is mostly about using AI to speed up logistical processes - if this is aimed at ecologists (and in our world of increasingly powerful generative AI), I might add a section on AI for data analysis, forecasting, and predicting trends. Ecologists and conservationists will increasingly be turning to AI for analysis, and this requires a bit more nuanced integration with the user than simply using AI to plan your calendar or write an email.