I heard that piece, but I read is less as "unwilling to grapple" and more "resigned to the fact that it is inevitable the technology will be built, so might as well enjoy myself building it".
It would feel a little grating to me as the interviewee to have the interviewer keep pressing me on these questions that, while totally relevant, are obviously designed to make me have to "answer for what I'm doing" in some Frankenstein-esque sense. Yeah, I get it, it's scary, but this train left the station a long, long time ago and probably I'm not (even as someone working on the tech) gonna have a lot to say about the downsides that haven't already been said.
With great power comes great responsibility. If you want to make money or social capital out of providing some innovation, you have some obligation to think about the negative externalities that will result and come up with a way to minimize them.
The negative externality of fire isn't arson, it's uncontrolled burning. Once you know water extinguishes fires, that's something to think about the next time you start one.
The thing is, we know what externalities are and how they play out in regards to technology, even if we can't fully predict them. It's trivial to infer that this technology could be abused for deception, and that some sort of authentication technology might help to prevent that. So the responsible thing to do would be to provide both the editing and authentication technologies at the same time, even if neither is perfect.
I just don't understand how they can be expected to provide this, though. This "authentication technology" might not even exist, and in any case is very likely to be wildly different from the editing tech.
The editing tech in the OP is also off-the-shelf components, i.e. nothing was invented, just assembled in to the correct form. What exactly are they supposed to have done, just not posted anything about it until they found a way to thwart the technique they just discovered? Most likely this bottoms out in an arms race, so they'd be waiting forever.
Your request seems really absurd and I've never seen technological innovation work like this.
It would feel a little grating to me as the interviewee to have the interviewer keep pressing me on these questions that, while totally relevant, are obviously designed to make me have to "answer for what I'm doing" in some Frankenstein-esque sense. Yeah, I get it, it's scary, but this train left the station a long, long time ago and probably I'm not (even as someone working on the tech) gonna have a lot to say about the downsides that haven't already been said.