5 ms·

Ask HN: Would you stop eating meat after AI unlocks communication with animals?

12 points by amichail 3y ago

Or maybe you might still eat animals that have nothing interesting to say?

PaulHoule 3y ago
I communicate with animals a lot, for that matter animals communicate with each other a lot, just not verbally. I think cows are affectionate, that doesn’t stop me from eating beef. For that matter, my wife and I were driving into work and saw a huge buck in the side of the road that somebody has just hit with a car, she came back with some friends and found somebody else had cut off the antlers, they hauled the deer back to a friend’s workshop and cut it up, see here https://mastodon.social/@UP8/111259362923381643 https://mastodon.social/@UP8/111259362923381643 what is immoral about that?
- c54 3y ago
  Neat story. Agreed that animals are already communicating without some kind of newfangled AI. But also most meat consumption isn’t roadkill and doesn’t involve reasonable conditions for the animals while they’re alive. I see it as a big spectrum with factory farming on one side and {insert better conditions farm} on the other, and it seems worthwhile to move things to the right side of the spectrum.
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  > what is immoral about that? Nothing, like all the other under terrible conditions mass produced meat that makes up 99.99% of the rest of the consumed meat.. ehrm no wait what? Who asked about that anyway? A bit off-topic ;)
gloyoyo 3y ago
Ask: Are you yum?
meristohm 3y ago
Would a wolf pack stop hunting elk if they could all just sit down and talk with each other? We're not wolves, of course, but meat can reasonably be some percentage of our diet. I prefer a few meals a month that include meat. I've read and thoroughly enjoyed Charlotte's Web. I love watching animals of all shapes and sizes and abilities. I sat in a stand for hours, days, and ultimately shot a deer for food. I also accept that I will eat meat and enjoy it as a delicious luxury, even if they have something interesting to say. We've killed so many wolves that it is now on us to either give more land back to wolves, removing our fences and livestock, or kill the deer ourselves. There are already animals I will not eat unless it's necessary for survival. Whales. Wolves. Bears. Raptors. Chimpanzees. The list is fairly long. Consider reading The Birchbark House by Louise Erdrich[0], about Omakayas and her family (Anishinaabe, 1847) living through the seasons of a year. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birchbark_House https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birchbark_House
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  > Would a wolf pack stop hunting elk if they could all just sit down and talk with each other? Wolf pack to elk: Hey, you ok with we eating you? Elk: WTF definitely not, go away please. Wolf: But we have no other option and want also to survive! Elk: (argument less meh) For us it is a bit different though now.
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  > Would a wolf pack stop hunting elk if they could all just sit down and talk with each other? Obviously I could not know (unless such a thing were happening and I were there to observe it, which I am not), so I would try to guess. Maybe temporarily, if you actually have something to discuss (rather than wanting to eat). Even then it would probably be rare even if it is somehow possible. > but meat can reasonably be some percentage of our diet. I prefer a few meals a month that include meat. Yes, I think so too. Of course it need not be all the time (humans is omnivores and should eat both plants and meats), but a few meals in a month, it can be OK. > We've killed so many wolves that it is now on us to either give more land back to wolves, removing our fences and livestock, or kill the deer ourselves. I do think that, you should give more land back to the wolves if they have run out of land (but it is not necessary if that is not the case). Kill the deer yourself is not completely the solution, though, but may be worth if you like to eat a deer. Otherwise, I think that it is generally better not to do and to do something else instead. > There are already animals I will not eat unless it's necessary for survival. Whales. Wolves. Bears. Raptors. Chimpanzees. The list is fairly long. I also, but unless it is because they are endangered, it will not be because of a moral reason; rather, just what I eat is something else instead.
- paulcole 3y ago
  > meat can reasonably be some percentage of our diet. Is this actually true? Or is it true to you because: > I prefer a few meals a month that include meat. There’s tons of things some people like that the majority of people choose not to do because we’re “civilized.” But then there’s tons of stuff that we convince ourselves is logical and reasonable because it fits with the worldview and lifestyle that we personally like.
ulrischa 3y ago
It depends what the animals would say. Because of low intelligence they would probably mit say something that leads to a conversation
- raytube 3y ago
  Hey buddy are you food, have you got food? Rinse repeat. Or, ahhhh go away. Run for the hills. Or, what's with the lack of fur, what a freak.
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  Why would it depend on that? At which response (or intelligence level? or what?) would you stop? As soon as you could have a reasonable conversation with them?
johnea 3y ago
It ironic that most people consider their "pets" a part of the family, but other animals are just a steak. Conclusion: most people really don';t give a shit if animals are snetient or not. They want their make believe family member and eat it too...
- baron816 3y ago
  Most people just aren’t philosophical about their dining habits or their pets. Both are mostly cultural things. In an alternate reality, pigs would’ve been bred to be pets and dogs would’ve been bred to be livestock. Or maybe both would’ve been pets or both would’ve been livestock. Either way, it took thousands of years for us to get to the point where we are where dogs are pets and pigs are livestock, and you can’t easily undo that on a global scale by saying “pigs are smart and sentient so we shouldn’t eat them.” I wish we could, but that’s just not how cultural change happens.
  - johnea 3y ago
    I agree with your entire reply. > Most people just aren’t philosophical about their dining habits or their pets That is to say, people typically pursue these behaviours without considering the reasons or consequences. This is what I would call "not giving a shit" > mostly cultural things I also agree with this. Other things that are "mostly cultural things": war, all other forms of murder torture and rape, slavery, colonialism and other forms of physical domination of one group by another, destructive assault on the natural environment for profit with no consideration for the long term consequences.
- jayski 3y ago
  I am against animal cruelty,I give a shit. But there is an explanation for this. We eat animals that eat stuff we don't value. Cows eat grass, chickens eat grains we don't want, etc. This is for efficiency, if we wanted to raise lions for food we would first have to raise another animal for the lions to eat. Same thing with dogs, cats, etc. I guess the main exception is fishing,for example Tuna or Salmon. But in this case those fish eat other smaller fish that we don't value. You also don't (normally) see people have a pet tuna.
graemebenzie 3y ago
Hey hey https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/572731277582906714/ https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/572731277582906714/
indy 3y ago
No
0xParlay 3y ago
If anything my appetite for shark fin becomes righteous considering the amount of lives I save.
Simulacra 3y ago
I would probably take an ax to AI and go back to eating my burger. This reminds me of the ending of the fly. "kill meeeee"
wetpaws 3y ago
[dead]
williamstein 3y ago
I was a vegetarian for over 20 years, then I got a highly intelligent dog, who spent years trying hard to convince me to eat (more) meat!
dirtyv 3y ago
I would respect the wishes of any animal that can say "Please don't eat me"
- true_religion 3y ago
  If we are going to translate animal body language and sounds to English, then I think you won’t find any animal who doesn’t show fear in front of certain death. Yet… we will still hunt them, we will still eat them. Maybe not everyone in the world, but in my part of the world people butcher animals for their household during December. You have to bring home the animal, feed them for some days or weeks then do it. Yet, despite all that… we still eat animals.
sys_64738 3y ago
I'll tell you after this juicy steak is devoured.
thebeardisred 3y ago
I went vegan over 20 years ago. I grew up hunting and farming. I didn't need AI to see that animals have emotions and feelings to influence my decision.
zzo38computer 3y ago
I do not expect it would change it, but I wouldn't know something that hasn't happened yet. However, I might also be skeptical of the AI working very well. (I might also avoid to eat if they are too endangered.) But, I do think that people treat animals badly (and treat other people badly too, who are also animals, of course), and should be avoided. (Also should be avoided attacking them as much as they do (sometimes indirectly due to policies relating to other stuff, such as structure of lands, pollution, etc), which is, I think, too much compared with how much they should be; but also the how badly is treated even by one instance is also too much badly, too.) I don't know if such AI communcation would help; maybe, but I guess probably it won't help very much. Because you will eat, is not the excuse to treat everyone even more badly and even more often.
Euphorbium 3y ago
No. That is a ridiculous question. When artificial meat production scales, I will consider eating that.
eimrine 3y ago
AI will not unblock this because its about taking care to the animals so much that the animals effectively have a leisure to communicate. It's not a data problem.
throwaway290 3y ago
Humans, you are thinking of humans. AI is a tool built on top of predicting next token using training dataset. Thinking AI translation between humans and other animals would be anything real is preposterous and dangerous until there is training data for that. Data provided by human scientists. Who would have to learn to communicate with other animals first. Knowing that other animals feel pain should be enough to not eat meat, as long as you can get equivalent nutrition.
errantwalker 3y ago
Would you stop being poor after AI unlocks being a trillionaire? Or maybe you might be still poor, because AI is not trained to be working for the poor people. AI will not unlock communication with animals, because 99.9% species of animals doesn't create sanitize data for training a LLAMA (not YAMA). When the animals will learn to speak and develop a symbolic language, maybe AI could develop communication with them. In the meanwhile, keep using LATIN ALPHABET DERIVATIVES IN HIGH ORDER LANGUAGES to develop machines and algorithms and transform them to the Gregorian Calendar to count ticks in a processor an create Human Readable Datetime types to keep record of your *nixonian alchemy finances. We all love the 70s. Hippies, Yuppies and SuperCows commands. Electric Jimi. PD: Take LSD and convert to Buddhism if you want to speak with animals, it is cheaper and pollutes less this communal IDE people use to create coins and stocks.
neuronsong 3y ago
Would you stop eating vegetables after AI unlocks communication with plants? No... and No.
throwaway2016a 3y ago
I think people were too quick to believe that AI will let you talk to animals article that came out last week. AI in it's current iteration needs clean training data... none exists for animal voices. And that probably isn't changing any time soon. Beyond maybe: "I'm hungry." With that said, if it did happen, it would 100% depend on what they had to say.
jemmyw 3y ago
We can already communicate with animals. They don't have a secret language. We're probably better able to understand them than they each other because we research and look for signals that are irrelevant to the daily lives of wild creatures. There's a lot of media depiction of scenarios where someone can talk to animals, either via magic or by technology (a different magic). So it does not surprise me that a lot of people just believe animals can talk to each other if only we could understand. This isn't to say there aren't some unknown communications going on - we regularly find new ones. But we're never going to find what we would consider a language.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  We have known for decades now that bottlenose dolphins understand language, and I mean the regularities that distinguish it from ordinary communication because we tested them with an artificially constructed one. And I mean tested comprehension rather than production. Lot easier to write off results of the latter. The idea then that these highly social animals have the ability to understand an artificially constructed language but don't use one naturally is highly suspect. Especially when everything we can observe indicates it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027784900039 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002... "Comprehension, at levels far above chance, was shown for all of the sentence forms and sentence meanings that could be generated by the lexicon and the set of syntactic rules, and included the understanding of: (a) lexically novel sentences; (b) structurally novel sentences; (c) semantically reversible sentences that expressed relationships between objects; (d) sentences in which changes in modifier position changed sentence meaning; and (e) conjoined sentences (Phoenix). Additional abilities demonstrated included a broad and immediate generalization of the lexical items to different exemplars of objects; an ability to modulate the form of response to given action words, in order to apply the action appropriately to new objects, to different object attributes, or to different object locations; an ability to carry out instructions correctly despite changes in the context or location in which a sentence was given, or in the trainer providing the instructions; an ability to distinguish between different relational concepts; an ability to respond correctly to sentences given with no objects present in the tank until 30 seconds after the instruction was given (displacement tests); and an ability to report correctly that the particular object designated in a sentence was in fact not present in the tank, although all other objects were (Akeakamai). ...... The comprehension approach used was a radical departure from the emphasis on language production in studies of the linguistic abilities of apes; the result obtained offer the first convincing evidence of the ability of animals to process both semantic and syntactic features of sentences. "
Brian_K_White 3y ago
If there was anything there to communicate with, we wouldn't need ai to do it. In fact we'd probably be at war with them just like with other humans, not owning them and using them and extincting them. This question can only spring from magical mystical nonsense thinking. You may as well daydream about ai unlocking communication with toasters, or the earth.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  This doesn't make any sense.
satisfice 3y ago
The only interesting thing would be if AI could make them understand US. Which it can’t.
SunghoYahng 3y ago
It's as if the animals are speaking a foreign language. But if we were able to talk to them, they would actually struggle to form a sentence (unless the translator AI made it look that way).

12 points by amichail 3y ago

Or maybe you might still eat animals that have nothing interesting to say?

I communicate with animals a lot, for that matter animals communicate with each other a lot, just not verbally. I think cows are affectionate, that doesn’t stop me from eating beef. For that matter, my wife and I were driving into work and saw a huge buck in the side of the road that somebody has just hit with a car, she came back with some friends and found somebody else had cut off the antlers, they hauled the deer back to a friend’s workshop and cut it up, see here https://mastodon.social/@UP8/111259362923381643 https://mastodon.social/@UP8/111259362923381643 what is immoral about that?

c54 3y ago
Neat story. Agreed that animals are already communicating without some kind of newfangled AI. But also most meat consumption isn’t roadkill and doesn’t involve reasonable conditions for the animals while they’re alive. I see it as a big spectrum with factory farming on one side and {insert better conditions farm} on the other, and it seems worthwhile to move things to the right side of the spectrum.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
> what is immoral about that? Nothing, like all the other under terrible conditions mass produced meat that makes up 99.99% of the rest of the consumed meat.. ehrm no wait what? Who asked about that anyway? A bit off-topic ;)

gloyoyo 3y ago

Ask: Are you yum?

meristohm 3y ago

Would a wolf pack stop hunting elk if they could all just sit down and talk with each other? We're not wolves, of course, but meat can reasonably be some percentage of our diet. I prefer a few meals a month that include meat. I've read and thoroughly enjoyed Charlotte's Web. I love watching animals of all shapes and sizes and abilities. I sat in a stand for hours, days, and ultimately shot a deer for food. I also accept that I will eat meat and enjoy it as a delicious luxury, even if they have something interesting to say. We've killed so many wolves that it is now on us to either give more land back to wolves, removing our fences and livestock, or kill the deer ourselves. There are already animals I will not eat unless it's necessary for survival. Whales. Wolves. Bears. Raptors. Chimpanzees. The list is fairly long. Consider reading The Birchbark House by Louise Erdrich[0], about Omakayas and her family (Anishinaabe, 1847) living through the seasons of a year. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birchbark_House https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birchbark_House

throwbadubadu 3y ago
> Would a wolf pack stop hunting elk if they could all just sit down and talk with each other? Wolf pack to elk: Hey, you ok with we eating you? Elk: WTF definitely not, go away please. Wolf: But we have no other option and want also to survive! Elk: (argument less meh) For us it is a bit different though now.
zzo38computer 3y ago
> Would a wolf pack stop hunting elk if they could all just sit down and talk with each other? Obviously I could not know (unless such a thing were happening and I were there to observe it, which I am not), so I would try to guess. Maybe temporarily, if you actually have something to discuss (rather than wanting to eat). Even then it would probably be rare even if it is somehow possible. > but meat can reasonably be some percentage of our diet. I prefer a few meals a month that include meat. Yes, I think so too. Of course it need not be all the time (humans is omnivores and should eat both plants and meats), but a few meals in a month, it can be OK. > We've killed so many wolves that it is now on us to either give more land back to wolves, removing our fences and livestock, or kill the deer ourselves. I do think that, you should give more land back to the wolves if they have run out of land (but it is not necessary if that is not the case). Kill the deer yourself is not completely the solution, though, but may be worth if you like to eat a deer. Otherwise, I think that it is generally better not to do and to do something else instead. > There are already animals I will not eat unless it's necessary for survival. Whales. Wolves. Bears. Raptors. Chimpanzees. The list is fairly long. I also, but unless it is because they are endangered, it will not be because of a moral reason; rather, just what I eat is something else instead.
paulcole 3y ago
> meat can reasonably be some percentage of our diet. Is this actually true? Or is it true to you because: > I prefer a few meals a month that include meat. There’s tons of things some people like that the majority of people choose not to do because we’re “civilized.” But then there’s tons of stuff that we convince ourselves is logical and reasonable because it fits with the worldview and lifestyle that we personally like.

ulrischa 3y ago

It depends what the animals would say. Because of low intelligence they would probably mit say something that leads to a conversation

raytube 3y ago
Hey buddy are you food, have you got food? Rinse repeat. Or, ahhhh go away. Run for the hills. Or, what's with the lack of fur, what a freak.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Why would it depend on that? At which response (or intelligence level? or what?) would you stop? As soon as you could have a reasonable conversation with them?

johnea 3y ago

It ironic that most people consider their "pets" a part of the family, but other animals are just a steak. Conclusion: most people really don';t give a shit if animals are snetient or not. They want their make believe family member and eat it too...

baron816 3y ago
Most people just aren’t philosophical about their dining habits or their pets. Both are mostly cultural things. In an alternate reality, pigs would’ve been bred to be pets and dogs would’ve been bred to be livestock. Or maybe both would’ve been pets or both would’ve been livestock. Either way, it took thousands of years for us to get to the point where we are where dogs are pets and pigs are livestock, and you can’t easily undo that on a global scale by saying “pigs are smart and sentient so we shouldn’t eat them.” I wish we could, but that’s just not how cultural change happens.
- johnea 3y ago
  I agree with your entire reply. > Most people just aren’t philosophical about their dining habits or their pets That is to say, people typically pursue these behaviours without considering the reasons or consequences. This is what I would call "not giving a shit" > mostly cultural things I also agree with this. Other things that are "mostly cultural things": war, all other forms of murder torture and rape, slavery, colonialism and other forms of physical domination of one group by another, destructive assault on the natural environment for profit with no consideration for the long term consequences.
jayski 3y ago
I am against animal cruelty,I give a shit. But there is an explanation for this. We eat animals that eat stuff we don't value. Cows eat grass, chickens eat grains we don't want, etc. This is for efficiency, if we wanted to raise lions for food we would first have to raise another animal for the lions to eat. Same thing with dogs, cats, etc. I guess the main exception is fishing,for example Tuna or Salmon. But in this case those fish eat other smaller fish that we don't value. You also don't (normally) see people have a pet tuna.

graemebenzie 3y ago

Hey hey https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/572731277582906714/ https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/572731277582906714/

indy 3y ago

0xParlay 3y ago

If anything my appetite for shark fin becomes righteous considering the amount of lives I save.

Simulacra 3y ago

I would probably take an ax to AI and go back to eating my burger. This reminds me of the ending of the fly. "kill meeeee"

wetpaws 3y ago

[dead]

williamstein 3y ago

I was a vegetarian for over 20 years, then I got a highly intelligent dog, who spent years trying hard to convince me to eat (more) meat!

dirtyv 3y ago

I would respect the wishes of any animal that can say "Please don't eat me"

true_religion 3y ago
If we are going to translate animal body language and sounds to English, then I think you won’t find any animal who doesn’t show fear in front of certain death. Yet… we will still hunt them, we will still eat them. Maybe not everyone in the world, but in my part of the world people butcher animals for their household during December. You have to bring home the animal, feed them for some days or weeks then do it. Yet, despite all that… we still eat animals.

sys_64738 3y ago

I'll tell you after this juicy steak is devoured.

thebeardisred 3y ago

I went vegan over 20 years ago. I grew up hunting and farming. I didn't need AI to see that animals have emotions and feelings to influence my decision.

zzo38computer 3y ago

I do not expect it would change it, but I wouldn't know something that hasn't happened yet. However, I might also be skeptical of the AI working very well. (I might also avoid to eat if they are too endangered.) But, I do think that people treat animals badly (and treat other people badly too, who are also animals, of course), and should be avoided. (Also should be avoided attacking them as much as they do (sometimes indirectly due to policies relating to other stuff, such as structure of lands, pollution, etc), which is, I think, too much compared with how much they should be; but also the how badly is treated even by one instance is also too much badly, too.) I don't know if such AI communcation would help; maybe, but I guess probably it won't help very much. Because you will eat, is not the excuse to treat everyone even more badly and even more often.

Euphorbium 3y ago

No. That is a ridiculous question. When artificial meat production scales, I will consider eating that.

eimrine 3y ago

AI will not unblock this because its about taking care to the animals so much that the animals effectively have a leisure to communicate. It's not a data problem.

throwaway290 3y ago

Humans, you are thinking of humans. AI is a tool built on top of predicting next token using training dataset. Thinking AI translation between humans and other animals would be anything real is preposterous and dangerous until there is training data for that. Data provided by human scientists. Who would have to learn to communicate with other animals first. Knowing that other animals feel pain should be enough to not eat meat, as long as you can get equivalent nutrition.

errantwalker 3y ago

Would you stop being poor after AI unlocks being a trillionaire? Or maybe you might be still poor, because AI is not trained to be working for the poor people. AI will not unlock communication with animals, because 99.9% species of animals doesn't create sanitize data for training a LLAMA (not YAMA). When the animals will learn to speak and develop a symbolic language, maybe AI could develop communication with them. In the meanwhile, keep using LATIN ALPHABET DERIVATIVES IN HIGH ORDER LANGUAGES to develop machines and algorithms and transform them to the Gregorian Calendar to count ticks in a processor an create Human Readable Datetime types to keep record of your *nixonian alchemy finances. We all love the 70s. Hippies, Yuppies and SuperCows commands. Electric Jimi. PD: Take LSD and convert to Buddhism if you want to speak with animals, it is cheaper and pollutes less this communal IDE people use to create coins and stocks.

neuronsong 3y ago

Would you stop eating vegetables after AI unlocks communication with plants? No... and No.

throwaway2016a 3y ago

I think people were too quick to believe that AI will let you talk to animals article that came out last week. AI in it's current iteration needs clean training data... none exists for animal voices. And that probably isn't changing any time soon. Beyond maybe: "I'm hungry." With that said, if it did happen, it would 100% depend on what they had to say.

jemmyw 3y ago

We can already communicate with animals. They don't have a secret language. We're probably better able to understand them than they each other because we research and look for signals that are irrelevant to the daily lives of wild creatures. There's a lot of media depiction of scenarios where someone can talk to animals, either via magic or by technology (a different magic). So it does not surprise me that a lot of people just believe animals can talk to each other if only we could understand. This isn't to say there aren't some unknown communications going on - we regularly find new ones. But we're never going to find what we would consider a language.

famouswaffles 3y ago
We have known for decades now that bottlenose dolphins understand language, and I mean the regularities that distinguish it from ordinary communication because we tested them with an artificially constructed one. And I mean tested comprehension rather than production. Lot easier to write off results of the latter. The idea then that these highly social animals have the ability to understand an artificially constructed language but don't use one naturally is highly suspect. Especially when everything we can observe indicates it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027784900039 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002... "Comprehension, at levels far above chance, was shown for all of the sentence forms and sentence meanings that could be generated by the lexicon and the set of syntactic rules, and included the understanding of: (a) lexically novel sentences; (b) structurally novel sentences; (c) semantically reversible sentences that expressed relationships between objects; (d) sentences in which changes in modifier position changed sentence meaning; and (e) conjoined sentences (Phoenix). Additional abilities demonstrated included a broad and immediate generalization of the lexical items to different exemplars of objects; an ability to modulate the form of response to given action words, in order to apply the action appropriately to new objects, to different object attributes, or to different object locations; an ability to carry out instructions correctly despite changes in the context or location in which a sentence was given, or in the trainer providing the instructions; an ability to distinguish between different relational concepts; an ability to respond correctly to sentences given with no objects present in the tank until 30 seconds after the instruction was given (displacement tests); and an ability to report correctly that the particular object designated in a sentence was in fact not present in the tank, although all other objects were (Akeakamai). ...... The comprehension approach used was a radical departure from the emphasis on language production in studies of the linguistic abilities of apes; the result obtained offer the first convincing evidence of the ability of animals to process both semantic and syntactic features of sentences. "

Brian_K_White 3y ago

If there was anything there to communicate with, we wouldn't need ai to do it. In fact we'd probably be at war with them just like with other humans, not owning them and using them and extincting them. This question can only spring from magical mystical nonsense thinking. You may as well daydream about ai unlocking communication with toasters, or the earth.

famouswaffles 3y ago
This doesn't make any sense.

satisfice 3y ago

The only interesting thing would be if AI could make them understand US. Which it can’t.

SunghoYahng 3y ago

It's as if the animals are speaking a foreign language. But if we were able to talk to them, they would actually struggle to form a sentence (unless the translator AI made it look that way).