Hacked or not hacked is easier to say than ethical or not. Your ethical standards maybe racism to others, everyone have their own interpretation of ethics.
Expanding on this, if you had a machine that let you see 100 years in the future, you could nearly perfectly and objectively evaluate your security team's performance by looking at the number/severity/value lost through data breaches over that period.
With AI ethicists... if you could look 100 years in the future.. there's not an objective measure of ethical outcomes you could use to evaluate the performance of your AI Ethics team. I suppose a cynic would look at the total cost spent defending and paying settlements / judgements in ethics-related lawsuits. As far as a non-cynical objective metric for AI Ethics performance, I can't think of any.
Don't get me wrong. I think ethics work is hugely important, particularly in this new field. However, ethics are much more abstract than security, and therefore much harder to evaluate objectively.
> dollars lost due to losing trust.
Trust, ethics, and public moral outrage are hopefully related, but not the same thing. Also, measuring loss of trust and allocating changes in revenue to that change is very difficult.
> compliance costs?
I think many people would agree that there's often a big difference between legal requirements and ethics.
With AI ethicists... if you could look 100 years in the future.. there's not an objective measure of ethical outcomes you could use to evaluate the performance of your AI Ethics team. I suppose a cynic would look at the total cost spent defending and paying settlements / judgements in ethics-related lawsuits. As far as a non-cynical objective metric for AI Ethics performance, I can't think of any.