At acknowledged risk of sounding like an evil robot, what’s the theory of change that links this action to the desired outcome?
Traditionally the logic of a hunger strike is that it applies pressure to the target because they have sufficient conscience that they don’t want to watch you die, or at least don’t want to be viewed as responsible for your death, or don’t want to create a “martyr”. If you openly say from the outset that you don’t intend to fast to death or detriment, what motivates the relevant decision makers to change their actions?
You really can’t answer that question yourself? He’s suffering on purpose and that makes people wonder why someone would do that. It won’t make a difference in lab policy by itself. It draws attention to the arguments. It’s a costly signal that he deeply believes ASI will kill us all. That could make some difference.
At acknowledged risk of sounding like an evil robot, what’s the theory of change that links this action to the desired outcome?
Traditionally the logic of a hunger strike is that it applies pressure to the target because they have sufficient conscience that they don’t want to watch you die, or at least don’t want to be viewed as responsible for your death, or don’t want to create a “martyr”. If you openly say from the outset that you don’t intend to fast to death or detriment, what motivates the relevant decision makers to change their actions?
You really can’t answer that question yourself? He’s suffering on purpose and that makes people wonder why someone would do that. It won’t make a difference in lab policy by itself. It draws attention to the arguments. It’s a costly signal that he deeply believes ASI will kill us all. That could make some difference.
Death no. I didn’t say anything about detriment. My life is already clearly worse as a result of this action.
Also the point is to get attention of broader public, not just those at the labs.