Many of the questions ask you to pick among 'Strongly disagree' through 'Strongly agree' and most questions are optional. For those likert/select-an-option questions, I guess the survey analysers would do more aggregation among survey-takers, so quantity would matter there.

For context, Kirsten has long worked for UK government departments.

No. It just has a question ‘Where are you based in the UK?’, with an option to say ‘not UK-based’ and specify where you are.

Grayden comments:

I think generally they are looking for issues to consider rather than doing a straw poll of public opinion, hence quality over quantity

Yes; that Google doc is linked to as the call to action of the linked post :)

Emile is often the source for articles on EA in the media. (link to duplicate comment in other subthread, with examples)

Unfortunately, that's not a viable strategy. Emile is often the source for articles on EA in the media. Here are three examples from the guardian.

I get a ‘comment not found’ response to your link.

I think you should speak to Naming What We Can https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54R2Masg3C9g2GxHq/announcing-naming-what-we-can-1

Though I think these days they go by ‘CETACEANS’ (the Centre for Effectively, Transparently, Accurately, Clearly, Effectively, and Accurately Naming Stuff).

Maybe I misunderstood you.

I think AIM doesn’t constitute evidence for this. Your top hypothesis should be that they don’t think AI safety is that good of a cause area, before positing the more complicated explanation. I say this partly based on interacting with people who have worked at AIM.