Well, yes, you could define "real world considerations" as "only tangible items", and then Eliezer could be making this argument, and people could be accepting

Well, yes, you could define "real world considerations" as "only tangible items", and then Eliezer could be making this argument, and people could be accepting it. But I still think they would be doing so in error. Just as we can't be sure how Eliezer is interpreting the rules, future AI researchers can't be sure how valid the results of the experiment are. Since the meta-argument depends on the results of this experiment convincing these researchers, the meta-argument shouldn't be accepted. Heck, if the gatekeeper player is shown that the meta-argument exists, he should realize that the researchers will also come up with the meta-argument as a likely explanation for the AI getting out of the box, leading the researchers to further disregard the results of the experiment. Eliezer would do just as well to argue that a loss would discourage him from further safe AI research, or that the $10 forfeiture would deprive him of valuable research-related pizza.