To me, actually existing advanced AI systems seem extremely "well-aligned" and controllable. They're much nicer, more honest, more helpful, more fair-minded, etc., than the average person, and overwhelmingly do what they are asked to do. Of course, this doesn't settle how worried you should be about catastrophic AI misalignment in future, more advanced systems. Maybe armchair philosophical arguments, relatively subtle everyday failures of alignment and control, examples of dishonesty, blackmailing, etc., in contrived experimental set-ups, and so on, should all carry more weight. But I find it strange how many people who write and talk about this topic don't seem to give it any weight. Some don't even mention it as a relevant consideration. It's as if actual empirical evidence only becomes relevant to these debates when it involves failures of alignment and control. I think most such people would recognise this as a rational failing if the topic were anything else.