The recent announcement that the nonprofit organization iNaturalist received a $1.5-million grant from Google’s philanthropic arm to develop generative AI tools for species identification has sparked controversy among its users. iNaturalist is a popular online platform used by over 3.7 million people worldwide to record observations of wild organisms and seek help with identifying species. However, the news of the grant has led to concerns and backlash from the community.
iNaturalist works by allowing users to submit observations of individual organisms they encounter in the wild through the app or website. These observations typically include photographs, notes, and audio. The platform uses AI-powered computer vision to suggest possible species identifications based on the photographs provided. Users can then choose an identification or use broader categories such as “Plants” or “Fungi.” The community can then weigh in on the identification, leading to consensus and eventually creating “research grade” observations that can be shared with scientists.
The grant from Google’s Generative AI initiative aims to improve the identification experience for iNaturalist users by developing a tool that provides explanations for species suggestions. The organization hopes to offer not just what species was seen, but also why that species was suggested and how to differentiate similar-looking species. While details about how the GenAI tool will work were not provided, iNaturalist aims to create a prototype of this tool by the end of 2025.
Despite the organization’s intentions to enhance the user experience, many community members have raised concerns about the environmental impact of using GenAI technology. Critics worry about the energy consumption, e-waste generation, and habitat degradation associated with AI technology. There are also concerns about the potential for misinformation in species identifications and the devaluation of professional taxonomists’ work if AI identifications are presented as authoritative. Some users have even threatened to delete their accounts in response to the grant announcement.
In response to the backlash, iNaturalist has clarified its position, apologizing for poor communication and assuring users that they do not intend to replace human-curated species identifications or give Google special access to user-contributed data. The organization has stated that if the GenAI tool proves to be unhelpful, compromises data quality, or has outsized environmental impacts, they will not implement it. iNaturalist’s executive director, Scott Loarie, emphasized the platform’s focus on human connection and expertise, using technology to support and elevate these qualities.
Despite these reassurances, some community members remain skeptical and have expressed concerns about the potential use of GenAI. iNaturalist’s messaging has not definitively addressed whether they will still utilize this technology and how it will be implemented. The controversy surrounding the Google grant highlights the delicate balance between technological advancement and environmental sustainability in the field of nature observation and species identification.
