Willing to cooperate seems to be low status signaling. E.g., a low status author of an article may try to get higher status person as a coauthor of his article. But higher status author would not try to get low status author as a coauthor. Higher status people could defect with lower punishment, like not return calls or not keep promises. It results in open willingness to cooperate may be regarded as a signal of low status and some people may deliberately not cooperate to demonstrate their higher status. Any thoughts?

The problem is that in order to do anything useful, the AI must be able to learn. This means that even if you deliberately initialize it with a false belief, the learning process might then update that belief once it finds evidence that it was false.
If AI safety relied on that false belief, you have a problem.

A possible solution would be to encode the false belief in a way that can't be updated by learning, but doing so is a non-trivial problem.

I don't really understand these solutions that are so careful to maintain our honesty when checking the AI for honesty. Why does it matter so much if we lie? An FAI would forgive us for that, being inherently friendly and all, so what is the risk in starting the AI with a set of explicitly false beliefs? Why is it so important to avoid that? Especially since it can update later to correct for those false beliefs after we've verified it to be friendly. An FAI would trust us enough to accept our later updates, even in the face of the very real possibility that we're lying to it again.

I mean, the point is to start the AI off in a way that intentionally puts it at a reality disadvantage, so even if it's way more intelligent than us it has to do so much work to make sense of the world, it doesn't have the resources to be dishonest in an effective manner. At that point, it doesn't matter what criteria we're using to prove its honesty.

In the intersection of their future light cones, each FAI can either try to accommodate the other (C) or try to get its own way (D). If one plays C and one plays D, the latter's values are enforced in the intersection of light cones; if both play C, they'll enforce some kind of compromise values; if they both play D, they will fight. So the payoff matrix is either PD-like or Chicken-like depending on how bloody the fight would be and how bad their values are by each other's standards.

Or am I missing something?

Look at the history of cable TV. When it appeared it was also promoted as "no advertising, better shows".

A culture that include the concept of a "raiser" - an octopus with the job of raising the babies, and passing the culture on to them, without mating at all - can avoid that issue. The "raiser" would also improve his average genetic fitness if he is a sibling of one of the parents, since the children would then all have approximately one-quarter of his genes.

This is a lot less motivation than for parents.

If it's not enough to kill off the species, evolution generally won't drop the feature.

Well, for starter if you don't die after mating you might be able to mate again.

According to my source, which is a blog comment that doesn't site its sources, the death is a form of controlled cell-death and scientists have been able to remove the gene responsible and the resulting octopuses (or squid) can mate again later.

but because the US has explicit laws that not allow extraditions relating to double-jeopardy

Well do those laws (and the decisions interpreting them) make clear what should happen in a situation where the defendant was convicted at the trial level; the conviction was reversed at the appellate level; and then subsequently reinstated after a further appeal and remand?

I don't think so. One article I read has a law professor asserting that double-jeopardy would not apply:

Some legal analysts have said that Knox could cloak herself in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy, being tried again for a crime after an acquittal. But that protection wouldn’t apply to Knox, Ku [a Hofstra law professor] wrote in a blog post.

For one thing, the treaty with Italy would block Knox’s extradition only if she had been prosecuted in the United States, he wrote. For another, double jeopardy wouldn’t apply because Knox was convicted, not acquitted, in the first round.

I do think that there's a good chance the courts would resolve the double-jeopardy issue in favor of Knox, but not necessarily because such a result is clearly required by the law.

Will the final appeal find Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito innocent or guilty?

I will predict "guilty" with a probability of 85-90% since the highest court apparently decided against Knox and Sollecito previously.

When will the trial end?

The trial is already over, no? All that's left is further appeals, right? Do the appeals courts take further evidence?

If convicted, will the US extradite Amanda Knox?

I predict "no" with a probability of 75-80%. The sentiment in the United States is pretty pro-Knox and there is always a good deal of reluctance to send attractive young women to jail. The United States obviously has the juice to politely tell Italy to f* off and it shouldn't be too hard to find some procedural excuse to deny the extradition request.

Not only would I decline the invitation, I would be extremely suspicious of the fact that very few have defected, and also extremely suspicious of those who have. What you're describing goes beyond telepathy. It's effectively one mind with many personalities. I could never trust any guarantee of safe passage through such a place. It would be trivial for a collective mind to rob a single mind of choice, then convince it that it made that choice. It would also be slightly less trivial but still plausible for a collective to convince that mind - and fool other independent minds - into believing that it chose to defect when it actually didn't.

On the other hand, if after observing the political landscape of the time period I came to realize that this entity is clearly taking over, then I would jump on board as a self-preserving strategy, knowing that at some point the non-connected independent minds would become marginalized enough to feel threatened and lash out violently, at which point the faster-thinking collective mind wins the fight. Being caught in a collective is less horrible than being caught in the crossfire.

I'm not involved in any science fields so for all I know this is a thing that exists, but if it is, it isn't discussed much: perhaps some scientific fields (or even all of them?) need an incentive for refuting other peoples' experiments. As far as I understand it, many experiments only ever get reproduced by a 3rd party when somebody needs it in order to build on their own hypothesis. So in other words, "so-and-so validated hypothesis X1 via this experiment. I have made hypothesis X2 which is predicated on X1's validity, so I'll reproduce the experiment before moving forward".

What if there was a journal dedicated to publishing research papers whose goal is purely to invalidate prior experiments? Or even more extreme, a Nobel prize in Invalidation? Could some fields be made more reliable if more people were put to the task of reproducing experiments?