Ah, sorry I misunderstood. But if you assume the chance of loss of control is fairly high anyway, then a safeguard if a value alignment seems invaluable.

If you regard traditional moral systems as a way to align humans with group survival, every traditional moral system tries to inculcate empathy as an ultimate arbiter of righteousness, and as a check against the most harmful instincts and even the immoderation of otherwise virtuous ones like obedience to law.

Who cares about model wellbeing when we're discussing human and life survival? 

I have not read or heard of anyone making an argument that we should make sure ai doesn't harm animals or plants in pursuit of whatever goals we give it

The backfire risks of AI alignment vs the extinction of life on Earth? 

If AGI leads to massive increase in gdp and leisure time, and doesn't crack synthetic meat pretty fast, then upwardly mobile people will increase meat intake and use AGI to build more efficient factory farms first. If AGI is aligned for human life and safety but not animals', it might end up so ruthlessly providing for us that animals suffer so much more. If AGI is misaligned, then game's up for everything