AEB deliberately is a scary experience to prevent this mistake. If your car's AEB triggers you'll be suddenly and violently brought to a complete halt in order that the feeling is "Oh shit, I fucked up, is everybody OK?" not "Wow I'm a great driver".
With a beacon the experience is likewise not great. It's not "Activate beacon, rescuers magically teleport in and save the day". There's zero real feedback, so most people will be worried that it hasn't been effective, nobody is coming. After an hour, or two, or more, rescuers may show up looking for you. That's a long time to be lost or injured in the middle of nowhere.
That's why Return Link Messages in the Galileo network are so interesting. Basically, there's a super low bandwidth message channel embedded in the GNSS data stream. Its sole purpose is to tell beacons "We saw your beacon and we're responding to it".
As far as I know, though, most modern studies show that while there is some amount of risk compensation (people engage in riskier behavior after adopting a safety apparatus), the compensation is less than the benefit of the safety measure.
With beacons in particular, a potential compounding factor is that many people may not have gone out into the wilderness at all before beacons became available. So maybe there is a net increase in beacon usage but it could be because of an even greater increase in outdoor participation.
I think it's a net good for people to spend time in the outdoors, both for them personally and because it encourages society as a whole to prioritize preserving the environment. So if that results in more people needing to be rescued, it may still be worth it.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation