> Asimov never called it alignment

So it doesn't matter. The fact that someone coined a better term for the concept doesn't mean it isn't the same thing. So of course it gets talked about in the way you see because it has been the same concept the whole time.

If we're really going to nitpick then the coined phrase usage was not about killing everyone, aligning with human values. Much more broad and the connection is clearer. It implies killing, but it's still the same problem. (Come on, Asimov's stuff was explicit "aligning with human values" it would be silly to say it isn't)

So by your logic we would similarly have to conclude that Asimov never talked about artificial super intelligence despite multivac's various upgrades, up to making a whole universe. Never was saying ASI in "The Last Question", but clearly that's what was discussed. Similarly you'd argue that Asimov only discussed artificial intelligence but never artificial general intelligence. Are none of those robots general? Is Andrew, from Positronic Man, not... "General"? Not sentient? Not conscious? The robot literally transforms into a living breathing human!

So I hope you agree that it'd be ridiculous to make such conclusions in these cases. The concepts were identical, we just use slightly different words to describe them now and that isn't a problem.

It's only natural that we say "alignment" instead of "steering", "reward hacking", or the god awful "parasitic mutated heuristics". It's all the same thing and the verbiage is much better.