This analogy only works if the toddler buys their own lego and, while assembling it, the neighbour's toddler - whose parents can't afford to buy lego - chokes to death.

It is possible to build things that don't hurt people.

It is possible to reduce the harms of things that are likely to hurt people.

It is possible to not treat hurt as a foregone conclusion.

It is possible not to use this foregone conclusion to defend strangers who not only create things that actively harm people, but promote this harm as a good thing, without also providing the support to reduce or avoid those harms.

You'd consider that a fair comparison? I mean, it's not like the lego inventor is trying to shove legos down kids' throats against their will. These AI promoters on the other hand... are absolutely trying to thrust things against others and their wills, even promoting loss to what some deem a source of their well being (ie jobs). And while I don't know if the lego inventor knowingly & willingly deals with bad actors, I'm not so sure we can say the same for the AI promoters.

There is a difference between inventing a toy that has a chance of injuring someone, and, just for the sake of example, pushing cigarettes onto teens. Or opiates onto people in general.

I feel like Americans are tired of this shit being done to them with no negative consequences to the people who do this.