I don't have a dog in this fight but I think the counter argument was a terrible straw man. Op said it's too dangerous to put in general hands. Treating that like "protect the incompetent from themselves and punish everyone in the process" is badly twisting the point. A closer oversimplification is "protect the public from the incompetents".

In my mind a direct, good faith rebuttal would address the actual points - either disagree that the worst usage would lead to harm of the public or make a point (like the op tees up) that risking the public is one of worthy tradeoffs of freedom.

The original post concluded with the sentence "This is why I am 100% against AI – no compromise." Not "AI is too dangerous for general hands".