That would be fine if you and everyone else who tries to argue on this side of the debate do not proceed to then conclude from the statement that the AI has "good intentions" that it is making some sort of "error" when it fails to act on our cries that "doing X isn't good!" or "doing X isn't what we meant

The point doesn't need to be argued for on the basis of definitions. Given one set of assumptions, one systems architecture, it is entirely natural that an AI would pursue its goals against is own information, and against the protests of humans;. But on other assumptions, it is utterly bizarre that an AI would ever do that....it would be not merely an error, in the sense of a bug, a failure on the part of the programmers to code their intentions, but an unlikely kind of bug that allows the system to continue doing really complex things, instead of degrading it.