So you think a philosophy needs to welcome all change in order to be coherent, and that there's an inconsistency to promoting things you believe are positive while opposing things you believe are negative?

It is a pretty unlikely proposition that AI progress will be a net negative, especially over the long term. There is no great technology in the history of mankind that was a net negative. Even for the more controversial ones, like internal combustion engines or nuclear power, the pros still far outweight the cons. Why should AI be different?

Well... No. I'm saying that's generally the position of conservatism/right wing/authoritarian politics.

A left leaning politics does not just address the change, or accept change as is, but fundamentally invents the change. It is the revolutionary movement that leverage modernity, that is to say newness, your scientific revolutions, your enlightenment ideals, etc. to create new politics. Politics that are emancipatory.

The left is supposed to be a politics of historical invention. Using modernity to create new institutions, new rights, new publics, and new forms of collective life. Contemporary American left-liberal politics has become largely defensive and curatorial instead.

In other words the left generally invents the future, and dictates the changes in politics, that's what makes it 'progressive', that's why it's against reactionary politics.

So I'm saying the left leaning politics of today has fallen prey to closed, diminutive, reactionary politics, and there is new real new left politics that's inventing anything. At least not in America.

There was a glimmer with early technology, but the left rejected that politics in favor for stale institutionalism (the same ones from the 19th and 20th century), and ceded that technological ground to techno-fascists/rightwing/authoritarian/etc.etc. politics.