I think this is false. I expect Scott's post to be heavily upvoted, if it was posted to the EA Forum to have an enormously positive agree/disagree ratio, and in-general for people to believe something pretty close to it.

The EA Forum is a trash fire, so who knows what would happen if this was published there.

My read of the social dynamics is that in places where people are inclined to defer to me or people like me, they might initially approve of the Scott thing for bad tribal reasons, but change their mind when they read criticism of it from me or someone like me (which is ofc part of why I sometimes bother commenting on things like this).

My guess is it's also pretty close to what leadership at cG, CEA and Anthropic believe, plus it would poll pretty well at a thing like SES.

I think that Scott's post would not overall be received positively by those people. Maybe you're saying that one of the directions argued for by Scott's post is approved of by those people? I agree with that more.