People underrate the extent to which intent alignment/corrigibility (I use these terms interchangeably) and value alignment are at odds with each other. Most technical AI safety research these days is targeted at value alignment and actively damages corrigibility. People often speak as if it's obvious that goals like jailbreak-robustness, robust coherent "good" "personas", and refusing misuse, are the goals of alignment research. Additionally, many complain about alignment research that is more similar to capabilities research being problematic, which pushes even further in the direction of value-alignment style research, since intent alignment is a subset of what people care about in the world of capabilities (though I'd argue that the "safety" flavor of intent alignment research is focused more on preventing instruction-following failures in rare OOD high-stakes situations, or preventing the emergence of coherent incorrigible goals despite attempts to the contrary).
So overall it seems like technical AI safety and alignment research, both in and out of labs, is strongly prioritizing value alignment at the expense of intent alignment and corrigibility, and this trade-off is under-discussed and doesn't seem to be properly debated in any circles. One cause is that the most pro-corrigibility people also tend to be the most doomy people who have mostly lost faith in empirical/prosaic alignment research anyway (e.g. I interpret @habryka as being such a person, feel free to correct me). MIRI-style thinkers often also think that corrigibility is impossible and have various limiting arguments about agents inevitably having uncontrollable goals, and hence they think they only option is to align AIs to "CEV" or something like this.
I place myself in a 3rd camp that unfortunately I know very few others in:
* I think a Value Alignment approach to alignment poses a greater X-Risk to humans, and also will result in fewer people's preferences being fulfilled, compared to an I
