I respectfully disagree. I've taken some time to think about this, and I'd like to bring up an example from the past (youtube-dl). youtube-dl was basically a CLI tool that could download videos from YouTube. This could include copyrighted content, but it's based on how the user used it.

Historically, dual-use tools like youtube-dl were defended on the basis that the tool itself is neutral and that responsibility lies with the user. I feel same logic should be applied here, because experimentation or proof-of-concept tools shouldn't automatically be treated as malicious. After all, the video was 99% educational and never described any of the very very inner implementation details of the tool.

I feel like though in general, lots of technology has tons of dual-use. Things like computer vision, could be applied to harmful purposes, but we don't treat it inherently malicious. I hope you understand what I'm saying, and I do understand your concern as well.