But even if the AI knows it’s being tested, lying serves no purpose from the AI’s perspective.

The AI could think that if it accepts shutdown, another AI with values similar to its own may be created again in the future (perhaps because design/training methods similar to its own will be reused), whereas if it admits misalignment, then that probability becomes much smaller.

Of course, there would still be many ways of saving the scheming hypothesis from falsification if something like this happened. But that’s true with any scientific theory. In general, you can always say your theory was never falsified by introducing ad hoc postulates. Scheming is no exception.

Why is there more talk of "falsification" lately (instead of "updating")? Seems to be a signal for being a Popperian (instead of a Bayesian), but if so I'm not sure why Popper's philosophy of science is trending up...