I.e. “Google knew that X would result in Y and they still released X; they should pay for the damages of Y.”
The PR side of ethics research barely matters in comparison.
My first thought was ExxonMobil when I read this comment.
> In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to the company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change.
> According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "The funding of academic research activity has provided the corporation legitimacy, while it actively funds ideological and advocacy organizations to conduct a disinformation campaign."
Nothing has happened to Exxon Mobile. None of the executives are in prison as far as I know. You'd think the company would be bankrupt by now...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...
I interpret your point to be that publicly investigating the harm of future products---by the only people who can do so---is a bad idea. What is the alternative? Regulation? (Gasp!)
Perhaps we should start the disinformation campaigns before the products are developed. "If you are arrested on AI-provided evidence, you are guilty. Period."