I continue to think that you are misinterpreting the old writings as making predictions that they did not in fact make.

We don't need to talk about predictions. We can instead talk about whether their proposed problems are on their way towards being solved. For example, we can ask whether the shutdown problem for systems with big picture awareness is being solved, and I think the answer is pretty clearly "Yes".

(Note that you can trivially claim the problem here isn't being solved because we haven't solved the unbounded form of the problem for consequentialist agents, who (perhaps by definition) avoid shutdown by default. But that seems like a red herring: we can just build corrigible agents, rather than consequentialist agents.)

Moreover, I think people generally did not make predictions at all when writing about AI alignment, perhaps because that's not very common when theorizing about these matters. I'm frustrated about that, because I think if they did make predictions, they would likely have been wrong in roughly the direction I'm pointing at here. That said, I don't think people should get credit for failing to make any predictions, and as a consequence, failing to get proven wrong.

To the extent their predictions were proven correct, we should give them credit. But to the extent they made no predictions, it's hard to see why that vindicates them. And regardless of any predictions they may or may not have made, it's still useful to point out that we seem to be making progress on several problems that people pointed out at the time.