That's an awful lot like "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Some tech people just want to keep building, consequences be damned. Mentally shifting the responsibility one step further down the road is just a way for them to dodge responsibility.
It's worth remembering the developer is also "human actor." He's still responsible if he builds a dangerous technology, and leaves it for someone else to push the button.
The atomic bomb? But Nazis had the V2.
The videogame? But the creator rewarded the creative, entertainment and possibly artistic results more than the idea of collective time of addiction, or maybe thought "better than chemicals"...
The axe? It is for chopping trees. Dynamite? Mines. Death ray? To defend yourself from wolves etc.
Sure there will be cases in which someone develops something inherently and only harmful, but it is not the general rule.
Don't reason about the safety of potential future technology from the safety of past technology, generally. That gets you into nonsense like "my highly contagious bio-weapon won't destroy civilization because the axe didn't." You've got to look at the particularly characteristics of the new technology, with a cold and realistic understanding of human nature.
Still, it is pretty uncommon in general to develop a «highly contagious bio-weapon»: when it happens - and it happens - the destructive context is clear. But there are also very many cases in which the productive or destructive adoption of an otherwise neutral technology is critical. The progresses enabled by Yann LeCun: recognize targets, or thieves, or citizens, or tumors...
Mass extinction through technology has been a known reality since decades. The technology remains the enabler, the responsible remains the human actor.