Why We Chose AI: To Avoid Exploitation
Baby animals evoke universal awe. In the real world, capturing close, adorable wildlife content often comes at a cost. Cub-petting industries, the separation of young animals from their mothers, habituation for tourism, and staged photography are the hidden realities behind many “cute” pictures.
We chose AI as a protective boundary.
If a type of image cannot be created ethically or legally using real wildlife, then the only responsible way to create it is to make it completely fictional. In that space, imagination does not endanger the animal. Our images were intentionally impossible. They depict scenes that not only should not exist in the real world, but could not.
Our principle is simple:
The only ethical way to depict a tourist cuddling a wild animal is to make sure it is not happening at all.
How Academic Critiques Apply - and Do Not Apply - to Our Imagery
Some voices have suggested that AI wildlife images could encourage unethical tourism or wildlife trafficking. This concern deserves seriousness, so we examined the academic discussion.
What is clear is that this field is developing faster than the research addressing it. The images we created could not have been generated with this level of realism even six months before we posted them. Ethical frameworks have not yet evolved to meet this new category of content.
Current commentary in conservation journals raises theoretical concerns. Authors warn about undisclosed AI or realistic fakery that could be mistaken for documentary photography. They do not — and cannot — show a real-world chain in which clearly labeled, fantastical AI leads to increases in unethical wildlife tourism or illegal trade.
Until there is empirical evidence, the claims remain suppositions.
Conservation decisions should be based on data, not imagination about what might happen someday.
In response to the discussion our imagery sparked, we examined Threats to conservation from artificial-intelligence-generated wildlife images and videos (Guerrero-Casado et al., 2025), published in Conservation Biology. The article raises thoughtful concerns about AI potentially misleading viewers or increasing interest in wild animals as pets. This possibility deserves acknowledgment in any responsible ethical debate.
But ethical clarity requires precision.
The critique applies only when AI imagery is mistaken for reality, when it depicts behaviour that appears achievable, and when viewers are not told it is AI-generated. None of these conditions apply to the imagery we created.
1. The paper critiques realism. Our imagery is impossible.
The article warns against AI mimicking documentary photography or realistic animal behaviour. Our work is not a representation of wildlife behaviour. It is a fairy tale. Warthog piglets sitting quietly to hear a bedtime story are no more deceptive than a lion singing in a Disney film. No viewer can reasonably attempt to recreate what cannot exist.
2. The paper demands transparency. We met that standard.
The authors emphasise that disclosure is essential: AI must be clearly indicated. Our imagery was explicitly labeled as AI in the caption, and presented as a playful interpretation of a trend. You cannot use the paper as a critique while ignoring its main prescription, which we followed.
3. Fantastical AI can free wildlife from performing in the first place.
The core concern in the article is not about pixels. It is about pressure placed on animals to perform. AI becomes harmful only when it encourages people to stage real animals to satisfy what they see. Our work does the opposite. It offers delight through impossibility, precisely so that no animal will ever have to perform.
The article begins an important discussion. Our imagery answers a critical part of it:
AI can protect wildlife from photography altogether.
We also reviewed “AI-Generated Wildlife Videos Generate Confusion and Threaten Conservation Efforts” (University of Córdoba)
This article argues that AI-generated wildlife media can mislead audiences and distort understanding of animal behaviour, particularly when content appears realistic and is circulated without disclosure. One concern it highlights is the potential for charismatic AI wildlife content to increase exotic-pet desire — a point deserving serious consideration, and one we acknowledge openly.
However, beyond that concession, the study has limited applicability to our work. The risks it identifies occur under three specific conditions: the imagery must resemble real photography; the depicted behaviour must be plausible; and viewers must be unaware they are consuming artificial content. None of these describe the AI imagery created by The Safari Gals.
Our images are explicitly labelled and depict behaviours that cannot occur in nature - warthog piglets listening to stories, for example. Unlike the hyper-realistic videos described in the article, our scenes are not plausible, not replicable, and not presented as literal wildlife representations.
The Córdoba article also overlooks a key ethical benefit of AI: substitution. Just as faux fur reduced demand for real fur, fantastical AI can replace the need for staged, bottle-fed, or handled wildlife photography. Technology, when used transparently, can reduce the incentive for exploitation.
The article raises important broad concerns but cannot logically be applied to transparently fictional imagery designed to protect wildlife, not depict it.
AI as Wildlife’s Faux Fur
There is a powerful precedent for this kind of ethical shift.
The fur industry spent decades in confrontation with animal-rights activists. The battle seemed binary: either people continued wearing fur, or fashion would have to give it up. When faux fur emerged, many activists feared it might increase interest in the real thing. They worried imitation would reinforce desire.
History proved otherwise.
As faux fur improved, became more luxurious, more creative, more available, it did not encourage fox hunting or fur farming. It dismantled the demand entirely. Today, in the West, real fur is rare, mostly taboo, while faux fur is everywhere. Consumers are not confused. They are simply disinterested in cruelty because technology made the cruelty unnecessary.
But just as banning faux fur would never have protected foxes, banning fantasy AI, even if such a thing were possible, will never protects warthogs. Ethical solutions don’t come from fear, they come from substitution.
Consumers didn’t stop wearing fur because activists won the argument.
They stopped wearing fur because technology made cruelty unnecessary.
In the same way, AI makes staged wildlife unnecessary, especially if it stays transparently fictional.
Technology did not make fashion more moral.
It simply removed the incentive for harm.
AI, used responsibly, can do the same for wildlife photography.
The Difference Between Fiction and Wildlife Marketing
A group of AI leopard cubs sitting quietly beside a person on a pool lounger, and a real cub being handled for photography, do not belong in the same ethical discussion. One may be unethical to produce. The other is physically impossible.
This distinction is not only ethical — it is biological.
- Warthog piglets cannot sit quietly in a line and listen to a story.
- A newborn zebra will not step out of a helicopter and pose like a domesticated pet.
- Wild predator cubs will not play on a kitchen counter with a model standing behind them, regardless of any training, bribery, or coercion.
Even in the most exploitative wildlife venues, these scenes cannot be staged. They live in the same imaginative space as children’s books and animated films. They do not resemble safari photography. They do not offer a real-world expectation. They do not sell an experience.
One image advertises a behavior and a potential tourism product.
The other invents a fantasy.
They are not ethically comparable.
A Thought Experiment: The Warthog Piglets
Imagine the most extreme scenario. A safari guest has only ever seen Africa via The Safari Gals’ Instagram. They never read a website, never speak to a tour operator, never research anything at all. They see an AI image of Simone reading to warthog piglets on a chair and assume it is real. They travel to Africa demanding this exact experience.
What would it take to deliver it?
1. Finding a willing operator
A luxury lodge would need to agree to stage this scene. Yet high-end safari properties are moving in the opposite direction. They are under increasing pressure to avoid any direct wildlife handling. The chance of a reputable lodge agreeing to “bedtime stories with warthog piglets” is nearly zero.
2. Breeding or sourcing piglets
Next, someone would need to capture or breed warthogs specifically for this purpose. Each step introduces legal and ethical violations before the book is even opened.
3. Training the animals
Here the logic collapses. Warthogs are wild prey animals. The idea that you could train a group of piglets to calmly sit in a row, remain still, and “listen” to a human reading is beyond implausible. It is impossible. You are asking a wild animal to behave like a cartoon character.
4. Staging the scene inside a lodge
You would then need to bring these piglets into a luxury suite, keep them quiet, protect the guest, manage hygiene standards, and avoid stressing the animals. At this point, the scenario becomes not only unethical but comical.
5. Feeding them into canned hunting
The most extreme accusation suggests that such a photo could somehow fuel a pipeline where these piglets are later grown up for canned hunting. For this to be true, someone would need to build an entire breeding and training program solely to satisfy one misguided tourist’s misunderstanding of a fantasy image. The logistics, secrecy, and cost make this scenario absurd on its face.
The point is not to joke about actual abuse. It is to show that there is no logical pathway from fantastical AI content to the alleged harms critics describe. The causal chain collapses at every step.
By the same logic, an image of Simone standing in a hunter’s pose over a dead Tyrannosaurus rex would increase big-game hunting. Everyone understands that dinosaurs do not exist. Similarly, a picture of Simone surfing on the back of a dolphin would not cause people to line up to ride dolphins. These scenes are recognized as fantasy, not instruction manuals.
Our AI safari images exist in that same imaginative category.
Where Sustainability Standards Actually Apply
Global sustainability standards exist to protect live animals. They govern:
- Physical handling
- Disruptive photography
- Staged or baited encounters
- Removal from family groups
- Captivity or habituation for tourist entertainment
These rules regulate behavior toward real animals. They protect wildlife from stress, exploitation, and manipulation.
They are not designed to police transparent, impossible illustrations that replace exploitation rather than enable it. Policing fantasy does not protect wildlife. Protecting wildlife does.
A Future with Ethics and Imagination
Responsible tourism does not need to choose between creativity and conservation. Our approach is simple:
- Authentic storytelling of real safari experiences
- Zero staged wildlife or human interaction
- Clear disclosure whenever creative or AI tools are used
- Using imagination where real animals should never be used
- Producing imagery that cannot reasonably be mistaken for reality
AI is not here to replace the wild.
It is here to ensure that we do not interfere with it.
A Final Thought
The AI zebra we shared will never breathe, never fear, never be separated from its mother for a photograph, and will never be bottle-fed for tourist entertainment. It exists so that a real zebra will never have to perform for a camera.
These conversations are new. The technology is evolving. The ethics will evolve with it. What is already clear is that when creativity avoids using real animals entirely, the impact on wildlife is not exploitative - it is protective.
At The Safari Gals, we show Africa’s beauty without ever asking it to perform for us.
#thesafarigals #thesafarigirl