I fail to see the problem here. There are legitimate (often different) concerns about both of these two technologies.
The term "luddite" is often used to dismiss legitimate concerns about the negative impacts of a technology by those with no interest in addressing their impacts. If you find yourself using that term, you should go back a reassess your writing.
I am all in favor of discussing the problems with both sets of technologies. I personally think both have the potential to move humanity forward, or to be destructive.
I think "downsides exist therefore we must ban" as OP expressed is not a reasonable position. I'd consider it a neo-Luddite stance, but if that word is too strong or has the wrong connotations, then maybe "anti-progress" or tech-restrictionist or something.
Regardless, I still have yet to see why anyone wanting to ban crypto for the states reasons would not accept the same arguments w/r/t ML.
The only reason I assume we haven't seen the same vulnerability exploited for ML is that making decent model architectures is beyond the reach of most script kiddie types.
The term "luddite" is often used to dismiss legitimate concerns about the negative impacts of a technology by those with no interest in addressing their impacts. If you find yourself using that term, you should go back a reassess your writing.