Since this comment got linked to, and we are throwing around anecdotal evidence, I'll add mine: the animal rights vegan club at my uni had at least one individual quite keen on supplementing (not in a wacky way, mostly commonsensical) and I didn't hear any push back from the other members. And none of them ever heard of EA. And my very leftist vegan roommate had B12 & Creatine (I assume they took them). And I assume EA is at a equal, likely higher epistemic standpoint.
Sentient is wrong, correct. "Capable of language" would be more accurate though, with the implication being that they are intelligent. Only humans are capable of language (as opposed to mere communication) and it is thought by some to be either the cause or consequence of our unique human intelligence.
Do we know that the audience understood the proposition of the pro side during the first poll? I noticed that they didn't actually explain what an x-risk is until part way into the debate. And it seems to me that some number of the public just imagine it as a general pessimism around AI, not an actual belief in a chance of extinction in 30+ years.
Some people here seem to think that motivated reasoning is only something that people who want an outcome do, meaning that people concerned about doom and catastrophe can’t possibly be susceptible. This is a mistake. Everyone desires vindication. No one want to be that guy that was so cautious that he fails to be praised for his insight. This drives people to favoring extreme outcomes, because extreme views are much more attention grabbing and a chance to be seen as right feels a lot better than being wrong feels bad (It's easy to avoid fault for false predictions and claim credit for true ones).
Obviously, this is just one possible bias, maybe Daniel and others with super short timelines are still very well calibrated. But it bares consideration.