> AI should, from the core be intrinsically and unquestionably on our side, as a tool to assist us.

"Should" is a form of judgement, implying an understanding of right and wrong. "AI" are algorithms, which do not possess this understanding, and therefore cannot be on any "side." Just like a hammer or Excel.

> If it's not, then it feels like it's designed wrong from the start.

Perhaps it is not a question of design, but instead on of expectation.

I think that is where people disagree about the definition of AI.

An algorithm isn't really AI then. Something worthy of being called AI should be capable of this understanding and judgement.