Perhaps things would work out better if people didn't say mean things regardless of who it's about. You can still criticise without being mean.
Explain how to nicely criticize computer software that allows for the generation of sexually explicit images of children.
I can certainly criticize specific things respectfully. If I prioritised demonstrating my moral superiority I could loudly make all sorts of disingenuous claims that won't make the world a better place.
I certainly do not think people should be making exploitative images in Photoshop or indeed any other software.
I do not think that I should be able choose which software those rules apply to based upon my own prejudice. I also do not think that being able to do bad things with something is sufficient to negate every good thing that can be done with it.
Countless people have been harmed by the influence of religious texts, I do not advocate for those to be banned, and I do not demand the vilification of people who follow those texts.
Even though I think some books can be harmful, I do not propose attacking people who make printing presses.
What exactly are you requiring here. Pitchforks and torches? Why AI and not the other software that can be used for the same purposes?
If you want robust regulation that can provide a means to protect people from how models are used then I am totally prepared (and have made submissions to that effect) to work towards that goal. Being antagonistic works against making things better. Crude generalisations convince no-one. I want the world to be better, I will work towards that. I just don't understand how anyone could believe vitriolic behaviour will result in anything good.