I completely disagree with the way you frame this.

The "abundance" is not all positive valence. It is a flood of superficial good with an unmanaged ratio of negative byproduct mixed in.

Some of the "change" is not merely doing things a bit differently. The LLM flood is effectively attacking existing feedback and control mechanisms without any attempt to establish appropriate replacements.

I think there are several more dangerous sentiments coursing through civilization these days:

1. That people bear no moral responsibility to act in good faith, and the corollary that one can enjoy the fruits of production while externalizing all the liabilities.

2. That strategies like "move fast and break things" and "fake it until you make it" are universally applicable and appropriate, rather than only in the low-stakes entertainment/media/marketing fields where they flourished in recent decades.

3. That mere acquisition of capital gives one the right to perform N=1 experiments on global civilization, the economy, and the enviromment.

Not even touching your caricature of the AI argument, but “most dangerous sentiment [in] civilization right now” is a crazy thing to say during the current global political zeitgeist.

How are we establishing that this is good for civilisation?

What is civilization if not the amalgamation of people?

If sentiment around people is that they don't want this (and that seems to be the case, based on many many articles like the above, as well as opinion surveys), then who are you to tell them what's good for them?

People don't seem to want an improverishment of mind and soul in exchange for vague promises of some sort of other abundance.

Why are they being forced to that dubious trade?

"For all" is a bit of a stretch. Abundance for a very select few. The rest remains unclear.

> “I need to block abundance for all because I don’t feel safe with change”

… is a pretty grotesque straw man, but sure, fight it if you want.