Philosophical research on the ethical and political implications if AI could fully "translate" animal communications

The expected output is a philosophical paper on such implications, published either in an academic journal or the EA forum. Some examples of key questions that will be tackled might be:

• If it becomes technologically possible that AI could understand and "translate" some animals' communications, enough that it can not only "hear", but "talk back" and ask the animals questions (called condition 1), would human society in general believe it? (Maybe the question prior to that is: For the first few scientists who claim to have achieved condition 1, how could they prove and convince people of it?)
• Following from the last: What would be the incentives for different human parties to under/over-believe it?
• If condition 1, would human institutions try to suppress the technology, possibly out of the fear of animals' moral and legal status being elevated, and the political and economic disruptions this might cause (imagine the meat industry in light of chicken/pig/fish translation)? And what would be the ethical implications for such suppression, or the objection to such suppression, or simply opening up?
• Following from the last question, if such elevations are indeed allowed, what exactly should be elevated, in theory? For instance, should those animals be allowed to represent themselves in courts? In political discourse? In elections? In society in general?
• A question on the nature of happiness (or sadness), does it make the animals more or less happy to be able to learn about their own situations? If it makes them unhappy, does condition 1's potential to bring large-scale animal liberation be enough to outweigh that?
• If condition 1, it seems reasonable to ask if condition 2 could also be unlocked: AI understanding the "communications" of a species enough that it can invent new "vocabularies" that the species of animals would be able to learn, and use to do reasoning beyond their original modes of "communications" allow. Combined with technologies designed for them, the animals could record down their conversations and thinking, like humans using pen and paper, or smartphones to jot things down. What risks and opportunities would this open up?
• If condition 2, could this lead to some animals being able to gather in groups, discuss strategies, maintain a movement, plan and record and execute those plans, and possibly "fight against humans"? Could this lead to wars (people vs animals, people vs people who support the animals, etc)? Could the prospect of animals fighting back help achieve animal liberation, or backfire?
• Unless the idea combines with genetic or biological modifications, it seems that any animals who were once allowed to access condition 1 or 2, could be "disconnected" from it. What is the ethics of such deprivation? (vs the ethics of always suppressing them from such access) And the politics? (who if anyone, AIs/humans/anmals, should have the right to decide such deprivation?)
• How do other things like AGI, AGI timelines, prospects of digital minds, genetic techs, affect the picture of this tech?
• In general, we need to attempt to draw a broad picture of what a radically different world that would be.

Also, alternatively, another project would be Philosophical research on the ethical and political implications of enhancing animals' intelligence to human-level. Many research questions might be similar to the list of examples above. And this could be combined with the idea listed above.