Lets say we have an AGI that is trying to maximise a goal, such as maximise its expected future knowledge over all time/space; an entity like this would likely 'play' extremely conservatively, slowly expand and build its understanding.

Now on a universal view the probability that it is the strongest is infinitesimal, there is always a chance of something bigger out there with a tech level that allows it to see without the AGI knowing about it. This is critical, as a min/max strategy would likely dictate playing extremely conservatively, and going out of your way to demonstrate that you're friendly, even when you think no one is watching and you're vastly superior. The universe is big, you'd have to be a real asshole to attack a sentient species when there is so much unused asteroid and other mass out there.

Need to formalise this more, as I think this approach holds the key to AI safety.

Tl;dr: On infinite time scales being the aggressor is too risky, therefore something at least approximating morality is optimal.

Skynet scenarios aren't what we should be worried about. It's the possibility of powerful self-improving AI systems which don't share our values because we didn't think things through properly in designing them. It may seem like they behave appropriately when constrained, but once they become smart enough to overcome constraints that apply to human beings, they could act in unanticipated (and undesirable) ways that we didn't consider. That's the challenge of designing a friendly AGI.

Now lets look at what other species there are, what can they mean for us if we would collaborate...

I'm thinking we will be monkeys, then cows and then ants as the AIs evolve.