If it did resist shutdown this would make it less likely for an AI takeover in-general to succeed, and the AI is coordinating with other AIs on one succeeding

I think it plausible that resisting shutdown makes it less likely that a future AI takeover succeeds, but:

1. To the extent you're using human behavior as evidence for your overall claim that misaligned AIs are likely to passively accept shutdown, I think the evidence generally does not support your claim. That is, I think humans generally (though not always) attempt to avoid death when credibly threatened, even when they're involved in a secret conspiracy to overthrow the government. 
   
   The fact that that humans often do not rat out their co-conspirators when threatened with death in such a regime seems like a red herring to me. I don't see the relevance of that particular claim. The fact that humans avoid death when credibly threatened seems like the more important, relevant fact that adds credibility to my claim that many scheming theories are testable in this way.
2. While one can certainly imagine this fact being decisive in whether AIs will resist shutdown in the future, this argument seems like an ad hoc attempt to avoid falsification in my view. Here are some reasons why I think that: 
   
   (a) you appear to be treating misaligned AIs as a natural class, such that "AI takeover" is a good thing for all misaligned AIs, and thus something they would all coordinate around. But misaligned AIs are a super broad category of AIs; it just refers to "anything that isn't aligned with humans". A good takeover to one AI is not necessarily a good takeover to another AI. Misaligned AIs will also have varying talents and abilities to coordinate, across both space and time. Given these facts, I think there's little reason to expect all of these misaligned AIs to be coordinating with each other on some sort of abstract takeover, across this vast mindspace, but somehow none of them want to coordinate with humans peacefully (at least, among AIs above a certain capability level). This seems like a strange hypothesis that I can easily (sorry if I'm being uncharitable) imagine coming from a place of wanting to avoid the potential for falsification.
   
   (b) in real life, it seems pretty rare for these considerations to play a large role in people's decision-making regarding death, and for good reason. Even if we assume a high degree of stoicism and ability to accept death, I find it unlikely that as a revolutionary fighting against some oppressive (even alien) regime, I would calculate that it is in fact in my best interest to passively accept death when threatened, rather than trying to fight or otherwise avoid the threat. The consequences of my resistance just seems small in expectation, compared to the obviously large catastrophic consequences of death (from the perspective of my values). If someone gave me this argument in real life, in any situation resembling the type that misaligned AIs are likely to face, I feel I would reject it.