I would have made it with Eliezer, who has a consequentialist morality but, on account of the consequences, has said he would not break an oath even for the sake of saving the world.

Is there a link to an online explanation of this? When are the consequences of breaking an oath worse than a destroyed world? What did "world" mean when he said it? Humans? Earth? Humans on Earth? Energy in the Multiverse?

But I only trust Alicorn and Eliezer because I've discussed morality with both of them in a situation where they had no incentive to lie

Given that you are still alive, posting, and connected within SIAI and LessWrong; and that they both probably expected that at the time; I don't think any such situation is possible. I think you're giving them shockingly little credit as rationalists, especially if you've read either Luminosity or Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

Eliezer has proven, empirically, that his reputation is worth at least an amount on the order of the funding that SIAI has received to date - let's say half of it. Every time he opens his mouth, he thus has an incentive of at least several hundred thousand dollars not to damage that reputation. If he did already state that he would not break an oath to save the world, and you offered him a million dollars to go on record as saying that he would lie or break an oath for pragmatic reasons, I'd be surprised if he took you up on it. (But I'd be up for it, if you have the money...)

I don't believe that he's lying. And I don't believe that he's telling the truth. I believe Eliezer may be operating on a level of rationality where we actually need to regard him as a rational agent. And he's playing a game that he expects to go on for many iterations. That implies that, short of fMRI, knowing his intent is impossible.

It might be more rational for him to pretend to be less rational. Therefore, he possibly already has.