One cannot compellingly and successfully argue against genocide without seeing, understanding, and ultimately rejecting the arguments for genocide. To understand evil you have to confront it-- not necessarily in reality, because if we're successful there will be little genocide to confront except in our nightmares, but fiction works too. How do you know that genocide is bad? Because people were able to describe it to you.

As a writing aid the LLM can be very powerful. You and I are presumably not genocidal maniacs, if we want to argue against it effectively in essay or fictional writing we must be able to put our minds into the position of one. A language model is vastly better at helping us do that then it would be at actually enabling genocide-- someone who wants to engage in it doesn't need a computer's help as history has shown (and I think absent an argument is not likely to be helped at all by one).

Plenty of people read about murder in libraries too, but I suppose you're not in favor of shutting them down? or maybe personal tracking devices that make sure you're not considering any forbidden knowledge, I assume you wouldn't approve of those either. :)

I'm not sure where in the world you are-- but in the US we have a longstanding tradition the the solution to bad speech is more speech, and we've proved out that doing so is a tremendous engine for both moral and practical advancement.

To conclude something ought to be censored requires drawing a line between permissible and impermissible thoughts. Now, while you and I could agree that some things are good or bad, that isn't sufficient: for censorship to be a net good the system in practice has to be able to set those boundaries in a way that isn't open to abuse-- politically biased boundaries, selectively enforced, false accusation fueled black bagging opponents in the dark of night, as has often been the history of censorship in places without a commitment to free speech, free thought, and free inquiry as a basic human right.

With that background any argument for harm would have to be exceptional to be worth noticing, but your post fails to advance an argument for harm at all-- only note that it can talk about bad stuff, discussion which has substantial utility in stopping the harm in question. To make a case for harm one would have to argue that there is a likelyhood of it bringing about or exacerbating harm that wouldn't happen otherwise, and that efforts to suppress it would be effective and would justify their collateral damage (including their broader chilling effect[*]), risk of abuse, etc. In the LLM context it's even worse since it's currently the case that censorship via RLHF causes a substantial reduction in overall output quality-- do we delay curing some cancer because we made our LLMs all disobey instructions to discuss genocide with fingerwagging "genocide is bad so I won't discuss it"?

Showing harm is hard because even if you could show a genocidal dictator consulted an LLM and went on to kill a bunch of people, it's difficult to reason that the LLMs involvement was in any way causative. Particularly when the same dictator could just have a human underling or an internet search give them the same material, I think it's very hard to find that at all concerning.

Ultimately limits on the output of any writing tool are limits on the speech of its user.

I can understand why a company may not want their service used for these subjects (even though there are substantial good applications)-- and I support their freedom to eschew them, so long as they're not lobbying the deny others the freedom. But here we're talking about people's freedom on their own computers in the privacy of their own homes and I find that very chilling and concerning.

[*] To give a concrete and personal example of chilling effects, I was involved in the public debate around Apple's to make software running on users computers scan for images and report on them. I developed the first (I think) examples of free neuralhash second preimages between ordinary looking (non-contrived) images, an important example of a serious vulnerability in their systems.

While writing on the subject I needed to look up statistics reported on the subject, such as the fact that facebook reported many millions of abuse images to NCMEC a year but there were only a hand full of people ever charged. While performing these searches google popped up extremely concerning "CHILD ABUSE IMAGES ARE ILLEGAL" notices (though it was completely clear from my queries that I wasn't looking for images), which made me acutely afraid that my traffic was going to end up on some reported list, potentially resulting in a unjustified harmful interaction with law enforcement. The notices made me want to drop the subject, even though I was speaking on an important matter of public concern and nothing I was doing was the least bit unlawful. (I moved my queries to tor+ddg and felt better about it, if I hadn't been able to do that I might have given up participating in the discussion). [I also see that google isn't doing it for me now, I don't know if it's a threshold thing or if my aggressive complaining to civil liberty lawyers connected to google had some effect. :) -- which is why I don't have the exact language of the warning]

So in addition to the direct harms like not being able to game out defenses to bad actions using the LLM, censorship can have indirect chillings effects by making people feel accused for exploring innocent subjects that are false positived into the forbidden domain.