Regarding reflective identity protocols: I don't know and think both of your suggestions (both intervening at inference and in training) are worth studying. My non-expert gut is that as we get closer to AGI/ASI, the line between training and inference will begin to blur anyway.

I agree with you that all three strategies I outline above for accelerating inclusive identity are under-developed. I can offer one more thought on sensing aliveness, to make that strategy more concrete:

One reason I consider my hand, as opposed to your hand, to be mine and therefore to some extent part of me is that the rest of me (brain/body/nerves) is physically connected to it. Connected to it in two causal directions: my hand tells my brain how my hand is feeling (eg whether it's hurting), but also my brain tells my hand (sometimes) what to do.

I consider my phone / notebook as parts of me but to a usually lesser extent than my hand. They're part of me insofar as I am physically connected to each: they send light to my eyes, and I send ink to their pages. But those connections—sight via light and handwriting via ink—usually feel lower-bandwidth to me than my connection to my own hands. 

From these examples, I get the intuition that, for you to identify with anything that is originally outside of your self, you need to build high-bandwidth nerves that connect you to it. If you don't have nerves/sensors to understand anything about it's state, where it is, etc, then you have no way of including it in your sense of self. I'm not sure high-bandwidth "nerves" are sufficient for you to consider the thing a part of yourself, but they do seem required.

And so I think this applies to SI's self too. For AI to get to consider other life a part of its self—if it happens that doing so would be an evolutionary equilibrium—then one of the things that's required is for AI to have high bandwidth nerves connecting it to other life, like humans... high-bandwidth interfaces that it can use to locate people and receive information-rich signals from us. What that looks like in practice could look creepy, like cameras, microphones or other surveillance tech... that lets us communicate a ton back and forth. Maybe even faster than words would allow.

So, to put forward one concrete idea, as a possible manifestation of the aliveness-sensing strategy proposed above: creating high-bandwidth neural channels by which people can communicate with computers—higher-bandwidth than typing/reading text or than hearing/speaking language—could aid the ability for both humans but more importantly SI to blur the distinction between it and us. Words to some degree are a quite linear, low bandwidth way of communicating with computers and each other. A higher-bandwidth interface would be comparable to the nerves that connect my hand to me... that lets enormous amount of high-context information pass quickly back and forth. For example: 

Curious if this reasoning makes sense^.