'Imagine a physicist or a mathematician calling a theory "too powerful". It explains too much! You can prove too much with it!'
Actually, I can perfectly reasonably imagine a physicist complaining that a theory is too powerful. If a theory has the capability to explain any possible observation, it similarly does not have the capability of being falsified...
That seems like a degenerate trivial case. A better objection would be Occam, that a simpler theory is preferable where adequate. But even that breaks down here, because we don't have any adequate "theories", only the hard problem of how to build complex software systems.
I can see refusing an approach on the grounds that it doesn't work, but to refuse it on the grounds that it works too well?
Actually, I can perfectly reasonably imagine a physicist complaining that a theory is too powerful. If a theory has the capability to explain any possible observation, it similarly does not have the capability of being falsified...