I unfortunately lack time at the moment; rather than write a badly-thought-out response to the complete structure of reasoning considered, I will for the moment write fully-thought-out thoughts on minor parts thereof that my (?) mind/curiosity has seized on.

'As for “taking over the world by proxy”, again SUAM applies.': this sentence stands out, but glancing upwards and downwards does not immediately reveal what SUAM refers to. Ctrl+F and looking at all appearances of the term SUAM on the page does not reveal what SUAM refers to. The first page of Google results for 'SUAM' does not reveal what SUAM refers to.

Hopefully SUAM is a reference to an S* U* A* M* acronym used elsewhere in the article or in a different well-known article, but a suggestion may be helpful that if the first then S* U* A* M* (SUAM) would be convenient in terms of phrase->acronym, and if the second then a reference to the location or else the expanded form of the acronym would be convenient.

The diamond case: Even if I did want a diamond, I simulate that I would feel nervous, alarmed even, if I indicated that I wanted it to bring me one box and I was brought a different box instead. I'm reminded--though this is not directly relevant--of Google searches, where I on occasion look up a rare word I'm unfamiliar with, and instead am given a page of results for a different (more common) word, with a question at the top asking me if I instead want to search for the word I searched for.

For Google, I would be much less frustrated if it always gave me the results I asked for, and maybe asked if I wanted to search for something else. (That way, when I do misspell something, I'm rightfully annoyed at myself and rightfully pleased with the search engine's consistent behaviour.) For the diamond case, I would be happy if it for instance noticed that I wanted the diamond and alerted me to its actual location, giving me a chance to change my official decision.

Otherwise, I would be quite worried about it making other such decisions without my official consent, such as "Hmm, you say you want to learn about these interesting branches of physics, but I can tell that you say that because you anticipate doing so will make you happy, so I'll ignore your request and pump your brain full of drugs instead forever.". Even if in most cases the outcome is acceptable, for something to second-guess your desires at all means there's always the possibility of irrevocably going against your will.

People may worry that a life of getting whatever one wants(/asks for) may not be ideal, but I'm reminded of the immortality/bat argument in that a person who gets whatever that person wants would probably not want to give that up for the sake of the benefits that would arguably come with not having those advantages.

In a more general sense, given that I already possess priorities and want them to be fulfilled (and know how I want to fulfill them), I would appreciate an entity helping me to do so, but would not want an entity to fulfill priorities that I don't hold or try to fulfill them in ways which conflict with my chosen methods of fulfilling them. If creating something that would act according to what one woul want if one /were/ more intelligent or more moral or more altruistic, then A) that would only be desirable if one were such a person currently instead of being the current self, or B) that would be a good upgraded-replacement-self to let loose on the universe while oneself ceasing to exist without seeking to have one's own will be done (other than on that matter of self-replacement).