My view is much more engineering than philosophical perspective. Some degree of 'friendliness' (and not in the sense of psychopathic benefactor who will lie and mislead and manipulate you to make your life better, but in the sense of trust) is necessary for intellectual cooperation of AI's nodes. I think your problem is that you define intelligence very narrowly as something which works to directly fitful material needs, goals, etc. and the smarter it is the closer it must be modelled by that ideal (you somewhere lost the concept of winning the most and replaced it with something else). Very impoverished thinking, when combined with ontologically basic 'intelligence' that doesn't really consist of components (with the 'don't build some of the most difficult components' as a solution to problem).

Let baz = SI's meaning of AI. Let koo=industry's meaning of AI. Bazs are incredibly dangerous, and must not be created, i'll take SI's word for it. The baz requires a lot of extra work compared to useful koo (philosophy of mind work that we can't get a koo to do), the work that is clearly at best pointless, at worst dangerous, and definitely difficult; one doesn't need to envision foom and destruction of mankind to avoid implementing extra things that are both hard to make and can only serve to make the software less useful. The only people I know of who want to build a provably friendly baz, is SI. They also call their baz a koo, for sake of soliciting donations for work on baz and for sake of convincing people koo is as dangerous as baz (which they achieve by not caring enough to see the distinction). The SI team acts as a non friendly baz would.

edit: to clarify on the trust friendliness, you don't want a node to model what other nodes would do, that'd duplicated computation; this rules out straightforward utilitarian consequentialism as practically relevant foundational principle because the consequences are not being modelled.