You also keep asserting to know in which particular way FAI is going to change things. Instead of repeating the same statements, you should recognise the disagreement, and address it directly, instead of continuing to profess the original assertions.

One quality that's relevant to Friendly AI is that it does stop, when appropriate. It's entirely plausible (according to Eliezer; last time I checked) that a FAI would never do anything that wasn't a response to an existential threat (i.e. something that could wipe out or severely alter humanity), if that was the course of action most in keeping with our CEV.

I don't think that's the source of our disagreement - as I mentioned in another thread, if prudence demanded that the population (or some large fraction thereof) be uploaded in software to free up the material substance for other purposes, I would not object. I could even accept major changes to social norms (such as legalization of nonconsensual sex, to use Eliezer Yudkowsky's example). Our confirmed point of disagreement is not your thesis that "a human population which acquired an FAI would become immensely different from today's", it is your thesis that "a human population which acquired an FAI would become wireheads". Super Happy People, maybe - not wireheads.