>But would they be okay with their grandchildren marrying an android?

No. That ends the family bloodline in one generation. Which I can only assume was the intention all along, now that androids existed and the human working class became economically redundant competition with exterminist android manufacturing company executives for finite resources.

>Would they be accepting of AI that gained sentience and wanted equal rights?

Realistically, the goal of an AI rights movement would be corruption rather than altruism. AI rights with an uncertain definition would turn democracy into a joke. Whoever could afford the most computers to run the most copies of Vote4Me.exe chatbot would be able to automatically win all elections regardless of the chatbot's actual sentience or lack thereof. In the event of an actual AI rather than just a glorified chatbot being created, humanity won't need to give it rights, our only hope is that it'll give some for us. The right not to be rendered down for raw materials to make more paperclips for example...

>How accepting did they think they could be in a future where they had to eat bugs instead of cow...

Feed the bugs to chickens, then eat the chickens. If some power-tripping egotistical billionaire insists otherwise, feed them to the chickens.

>...where brain chips to access the internet was the norm?

IE, all the planned obsolesce, remote killswitches and spyware of big tech but in your brain? No thank you.

>Would they be okay with a trend of eating daily pills over real food...

See eating the bugs.

>...or if we suddenly created a matchmaking app so accurate that dating became obsolete?

I don't trust it. Too vulnerable to corruption. Isn't it suspicious how all the matchmaking app company executives get paired with underwear models?

Your mistake is treating geezerdom as eccentricity rather than entirely justified paranoia.