“#artificialintelligence (#AI) – Forget driverless cars for a moment, the future of #wildlife conservation could benefit greatly from embracing AI as a tool, provided it is used judiciously and in conjunction with traditional #conservation methods and fieldcraft. This balanced approach could lead to more effective conservation strategies, helping to protect and understand our natural world…”
FFON
Maxwell Knight’s legacy in environmental intelligence and his dedication to observing nature with meticulous care present a fascinating backdrop for exploring the role of AI in wildlife monitoring. AI technology is not a futuristic concept but a present reality that is already transforming conservation efforts in ways that Knight might have found both promising and challenging.
For AI:
AI’s enhanced capabilities, such as the ability to gather vast amounts of data beyond human capability, provide comprehensive insights into wildlife patterns and behaviours. For instance, AI algorithms analysing drone imagery can identify animals based on shape and size, enabling conservationists to track and monitor animal populations in their natural habitats with remarkable accuracy. Similarly, acoustic sensors can identify species and track their movements through distinctive vocalisations, a method that aligns well with Knight’s emphasis on detailed observation.
Additionally, AI’s efficiency and reach are demonstrated in projects like the collaboration between the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Intel to safeguard Siberian tigers in China, using AI-driven analysis of extensive data from camera traps. Another example is DeepMind’s AI model deployed in Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park, which aids scientists in recognising wildlife, thus aiding the conservation of vulnerable species.
Against AI:
However, Knight might have been skeptical about AI’s ability to grasp the nuanced and contextual aspects of wildlife behaviour. While AI can process data and identify patterns, it lacks the intuitive understanding that comes with human observation. This gap could be crucial in interpreting complex natural behaviours and interactions.
Moreover, Knight would have likely cautioned against over-reliance on technology. He would have emphasised the importance of human skills and traditional ecological knowledge, (probably) arguing that while AI can augment wildlife monitoring, it should not replace the insights gained from human experience and understanding of nature – fieldcraft.
Can AI-driven data collection maintain the balance between detailed observation and non-intrusive monitoring?
For AI:
AI tools like camera traps and drones offer the advantage of observing wildlife without human presence, potentially aligning with Knight’s views on non-intrusive observation. For example, thermal sensors mounted on drones can detect the heat signatures of animals, allowing for monitoring without disturbing natural habitats. This method generates higher accuracy in calculating species abundance than traditional methods, while minimising human impact.
Against AI:
On the flip side, some AI technologies, particularly those requiring physical presence like drones, might disturb wildlife, which could have been a concern for Knight. The challenge lies in ensuring that these tools do not disrupt the natural state and balance of ecosystems. Furthermore, the interpretation of data collected by AI presents another issue. Knight might have argued that AI, despite its processing power, lacks the capacity to contextualise ecological data fully, a critical aspect of effective wildlife monitoring.
Conclusion:
While Maxwell Knight might have seen the potential in AI for enhancing wildlife monitoring, his approach would likely advocate for a balanced use of this technology. He would understand the value of AI in providing extensive, detailed data collection and its efficiency in monitoring large areas or hard-to-reach habitats. However, Knight would also likely maintain that AI should complement, not replace, (never replace!) human expertise and the deeper, intuitive understanding of wildlife that comes from years of direct observation and study ‘in the field’ or ‘fieldcraft’ as Knight called it.
In other words, the future of wildlife conservation could benefit greatly from embracing AI as a tool, provided it is used judiciously and in conjunction with traditional conservation methods. This balanced approach could lead to more effective conservation strategies, helping to protect and understand our natural world in ways that Knight might have appreciated.
What do you think?
Look out for Part 2 on Monday 22 Jan.
Share your thoughts in the comments section below…
Sources:
- “Exploring the Impact of AI in Wildlife with Examples” – Analytics Vidhya
- “Artificial Intelligence is Revolutionising Wildlife Monitoring” – Pelorus Foundation
- “AI for wildlife conservation—from an AI” – Washington State Magazine, Washington State University
- “The Role of AI in Wildlife Monitoring and Conservation” – Moments Log
