A hunger strike is a symmetrical tool, equally effective in worlds AI will destroy and in worlds AI will not destroy. This is in contrast to arguing for/against AI Safety, which is an asymmetric tool since arguments are easier to make and are more persuasive if they reflect the truth.
This is true, but a hunger strike is a technique that effectively signals conviction in one’s message. It distinguishes people who really believe that AI will soon kill everyone from grifters etc. who are exaggerating, outright lying, or just using claims like that as non-semantic flavor text.
A well executed hunger strike might cause some people to think “huh, wait, those guys seem to think this is very serious for some reason.” That alone isn’t enough, because people can have conviction, but also be delusional. You have to follow it up with arguments that people can understand for why the problem is real. But the hunger strike itself is providing important relatively hard to fake, and therefore asymmetric, evidence that something might be worth paying attention to.
This is true, but a hunger strike is a technique that effectively signals conviction in one’s message. It distinguishes people who really believe that AI will soon kill everyone from grifters etc. who are exaggerating, outright lying, or just using claims like that as non-semantic flavor text.
A well executed hunger strike might cause some people to think “huh, wait, those guys seem to think this is very serious for some reason.” That alone isn’t enough, because people can have conviction, but also be delusional. You have to follow it up with arguments that people can understand for why the problem is real. But the hunger strike itself is providing important relatively hard to fake, and therefore asymmetric, evidence that something might be worth paying attention to.