Sounds like a lot of common sense

It doesn't sound like particularly common sense - I'd guess that significantly less than half of humans would arrive at that as a cached 'common sense' solution.

that is very difficult to derive rationally.

It's utterly trivial application of instrumental rationality. I can come up with it in 2 seconds. If the AI is as smart as I am (and with far less human biases) it can arrive at the solution as simply as I can. Especially after it reads every book on strategy that humans have written. Heck, it can read my comment and then decide whether it is a good strategy.

Artificial intelligences aren't stupid.

Just a little more anthropomorphizing and we'll be speaking of AI that just knows what is the moral thing to do, innately, because he's such a good guy.

Or... not. That's utter nonsense. We have been explicitly describing AIs that have been programmed with terminal goals. The AI would then

The 'basic analysis of what my humans seem to want' has fairly creepy overtones to it (testing hypotheses style). On top of it, say, you tell it, okay just do what ever you think i would do if I thought faster, and it obliges, you are vaporized, because you would of gotten bored into suicide if you thought faster, your simple values system works like this. What's exactly wrong about that course of action? I don't think 'extrapolating' is well defined.

CEV is well enough defined that it just wouldn't do that unless you actually do want it - in which case you, well, want it to do that so have no cause to complain. Reading even the incomplete specification from 2004 is sufficient to tell us that a GAI that does that is not implementing something that can reasonably called CEV. I must conclude that you are replying to a straw man (presumably due to not having actually read the materials you criticise.)