I agree with all of that. My post I mentioned, The (partial) fallacy of dumb superintelligence deals with the genie that knows but doesn't care, and how we get one that cares in a slow takeoff. My other post Instruction-following AGI is easier and more likely than value aligned AGI makes this same argument - nobody is going to bother getting the AGI to understand human values, since it's harder and unnecessary for the first AGIs. Max Harms makes a similar argument, (and in many ways makes it better), with a slightly different proposed path to corrigibility.

As you say, these things have been understood for a long time. I'm a bit disturbed that more serious alignment people don't talk about them more. The difficulty of value alignment makes it likely irrelevant for the current discussion, since we very likely are going to rush ahead into, as you put it and I agree, 

the highly dangerous kinds of cognition implied by general intelligence of LLMs.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. We should mostly quit worrying about the very difficult problem of full value alignment, and start thinking more about how to get good results with much more achievable corrigible or instruction-following AGI.