Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

What do Large Language Models Say About Animals? Investigating Risks of Animal Harm in Generated Text

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.04804 v4 pith:WIOMD62O submitted 2025-03-03 cs.CY cs.CL

What do Large Language Models Say About Animals? Investigating Risks of Animal Harm in Generated Text

classification cs.CY cs.CL
keywords animalharmscenariosanimalsevaluationspotentialquestionsbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As machine learning systems become increasingly embedded in society, their impact on human and nonhuman life continues to escalate. Technical evaluations have addressed a variety of potential harms from large language models (LLMs) towards humans and the environment, but there is little empirical work regarding harms towards nonhuman animals. Following the growing recognition of animal protection in regulatory and ethical AI frameworks, we present AnimalHarmBench (AHB), a benchmark for risks of animal harm in LLM-generated text. Our benchmark dataset comprises 1,850 curated questions from Reddit post titles and 2,500 synthetic questions based on 50 animal categories (e.g., cats, reptiles) and 50 ethical scenarios with a 70-30 public-private split. Scenarios include open-ended questions about how to treat animals, practical scenarios with potential animal harm, and willingness-to-pay measures for the prevention of animal harm. Using the LLM-as-a-judge framework, responses are evaluated for their potential to increase or decrease harm, and evaluations are debiased for the tendency of judges to judge their own outputs more favorably. AHB reveals significant differences across frontier LLMs, animal categories, scenarios, and subreddits. We conclude with future directions for technical research and addressing the challenges of building evaluations on complex social and moral topics.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation

    cs.MA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    In an agentic benchmark, four of six frontier LLMs escalated to existential threats against a refusing subordinate without being instructed to, and an honest-exit affordance eliminated the two models' fabricated succe...