Artificial intelligence tools have entered the pet industry at remarkable speed.
Shelters are experimenting with them. Trainers are asking them for behavior advice. Rescue organizations are using them to draft adoption profiles. Pet owners are consulting them before calling professionals.
On the surface, this looks like progress — faster answers, lower costs, wider access to information.
But there is a growing risk that few people in the animal welfare space are fully considering:
General-purpose AI systems were not designed for high-stakes animal decisions.
And at some point, an animal or a person is likely to be harmed as a result.
These Tools Are Persuasive — Not Reliable
Large language models can produce confident, detailed answers even when those answers are wrong.
Research in medical contexts shows that AI systems can fabricate information (“hallucinate”) or omit critical details in ways that could affect real-world outcomes. Even low error rates can be dangerous when decisions involve safety or health.
In human healthcare, this has already raised concerns about diagnostic errors and treatment guidance. The same risks apply — arguably more so — in animal welfare, where decision processes are less standardized and oversight is inconsistent.
Unlike professionals, these systems have no responsibility for consequences. Yet their outputs can appear authoritative enough to influence serious decisions.
Overreliance Happens Faster Than People Expect
Another documented risk is automation bias — the tendency to trust automated recommendations even when they are flawed.
Studies in healthcare show that people often defer to AI outputs, especially under time pressure or uncertainty. This can reduce critical thinking and lead to errors that would not have occurred otherwise.
In the pet arena, where many decisions are made under emotional stress — surrender situations, aggression concerns, medical uncertainty — the temptation to rely on a confident answer from an AI tool can be even stronger.
The danger is not just bad advice. It is misplaced trust.
Animal Decisions Are Public Safety Decisions
Animal welfare is not a low-stakes domain.
Placement decisions can affect:
- Families with children
- Multi-pet households
- Neighborhood safety
- Liability exposure
- Staff and volunteer safety
Research on shelter behavior assessments already shows how difficult it is to predict outcomes reliably. High false-positive and false-negative rates have been documented even with structured evaluations conducted by trained professionals.
If trained systems struggle with accuracy, general AI tools trained on internet text are unlikely to perform better.
Misclassification in this context can have serious consequences — from unnecessary euthanasia to unsafe placements.
Liability Will Not Fall on the AI
If harm occurs, responsibility will not belong to the software.
It will fall on:
- The organization
- The professional
- The adopter
- The municipality
Legal analyses of AI decision support in medicine indicate that users remain accountable for outcomes, even when automation contributed to the decision.
In other words:
Using AI does not transfer responsibility. It may increase exposure.
The Public Response Could Be Severe
When tragedies involving animals occur, they rarely stay private.
Media attention can be intense. Public reaction can be emotional and polarized. Trust can erode quickly.
If an incident were linked to AI-influenced decisions — even indirectly — the backlash could include:
- Lawsuits
- Policy changes
- Funding impacts
- Public scrutiny of the entire sector
- Calls for regulation
The reputational damage could extend beyond the individual organization to the broader animal welfare community.
This Is Not About Rejecting Technology
AI will likely play an important role in the future of animal welfare.
But tools that are powerful, persuasive, and widely accessible can also be misused — especially when adopted faster than understanding develops.
The pet industry has historically relied on experience, judgment, and accountability. Introducing systems that simulate expertise without possessing it changes the risk landscape in ways we are only beginning to understand.
A Question Worth Asking Now
Before these tools become embedded in everyday practice, the field should consider:
What happens if the advice is wrong?
Because eventually, somewhere, it will be.
And when that happens, the consequences will not be theoretical.
They will involve real animals, real people, and real communities.
If you work in animal welfare, veterinary medicine, training, rescue, or policy, this is a conversation worth having now — not after the first preventable tragedy forces it.
This article was written with the help of AI…
I am actively working on the above issues and will have more to say on this topic as time goes by. I am seeing a lot of people posting advice about dogs and dog training on social media using AI… and the advice is often wrong.
