After commenting back and forth with you some more, I think it would probably be a pretty good idea to decompose your arguments into a bunch of specific more narrow posts. Otherwise, I think it's somewhat hard to engage with. Ideally, these would done with the decomposition which is most natural to your target audience, but that might be too hard.

Idk what the right decomposition is, but minimally, it seems like you could write a post like "The AIs running in a given AI lab will likely have very different long run aims and won't/can't cooperate with each other importantly more than they cooperate with humans." I think this might be the main disagreement between us. (The main counterarguments to engage with are "probably all the AIs will be forks off of one main training run, it's plausible this results in unified values" and also "the AI creation process between two AI instances will look way more similar than the creation process between AIs and humans" and also "there's a chance that AIs will have an easier time cooperating with and making deals with each other than they will making deals with humans".)