Thanks for the comment and I'm glad you like the post :)

On the other topic: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't be very helpful here. I'd be somewhat surprised if I'd have had a good answer to this a year ago and certainly don't have one now.

Some cop-out answers:

• I often found reading his (discussions with others in) comments/remarks about corrigibility in posts focused on something else more useful to find out if his thinking changed on this than his blog posts that were obviously concentrating on corrigibility
• You might have some luck reading through some of his newer blogposts and seeing if you can spot some mentions there
• In case this was about "his current views" as opposed to "the views I tried to represent here which are one year old": The comments he left are from this summer, so you can get some idea from there/maybe assume that he endorses the parts I wrote that he didn't commented on (at least in the first third of the doc or so when he still left comments)

FWIW, I just had through my docs and found "resources" doc with the following links under corrigiblity:

Clarifying AI alignment

Can corrigibility be learned safely?

Problems with amplification/distillation

The limits of corrigibility

Addressing three problems with counterfactual corrigibility

Corrigibility

Not vouching for any of those being the up-to-date or most relevant ones. I'm pretty sure I made this list early on in the process and it probably doesn't represent what I considered the latest Paul-view.