> Aren't there multiple Superintelligences, and how do they meta-analytically agree to disagree?
This doesn't necessarily follow. In fact, it brings up the question of what even makes an entity distinct at all from its substrate, which is philosophical.
Anyhow, "disagreement" as a concept seems to result logically from a divergence of goals or capability to model reality. As such, I suspect that it is a uniquely human (or limited agent, an agent that can't recursively self-improve and an agent that desires aggregation of resources) mode of cognition.
>Superintelligence might accountably cryptographically sign its communications or orders; e.g. with W3C Verified Claims and W3C PROV (so that we might ascertain that Superintelligence did indeed themself say or do things)
I don't know how to comment on this beyond thinking it kind of misses the point. You don't really need to spin your wheels worrying about how a superintellect would be "accountable" when your ability to model reality would be essentially worthless.
