Costly signals like hunger strikes are only likely to persuade public opinion if the public actually hears about them, which is only going to happen if the issue already has some level of public salience. (Whereas protests are better for building public salience, because they’re better suited for mass turnout).
I then also argued that a costly signal like this is unlikely to persuade people at Anthropic, who are already unusually familiar with the debate around AI safety or pausing AI and don’t hold a duty of care over the protestor. It’s at this point that the harms (including inspiring other hunger strikers) overwhelm the benefits.
Costly signals like hunger strikes are only likely to persuade public opinion if the public actually hears about them, which is only going to happen if the issue already has some level of public salience. (Whereas protests are better for building public salience, because they’re better suited for mass turnout).
I then also argued that a costly signal like this is unlikely to persuade people at Anthropic, who are already unusually familiar with the debate around AI safety or pausing AI and don’t hold a duty of care over the protestor. It’s at this point that the harms (including inspiring other hunger strikers) overwhelm the benefits.
What effect do you think the hunger strikes will have on the level of salience?