If you want safety you can opt in like Google does with Safe search.

Generally, hiding and deciding who can access information in the name of public safety has never worked in the history of human kind, and eventually had always morphed to control of those without access.

We know that the people who are making those decisions, the ones at the very top, are incompetent at best, and malicious at worst.

Given that, I would argue that unregulated dissemination is, on the whole, the more responsible choice out of those that we actually have. It's not that it doesn't have downsides, but other options have far more.

If and when humanity manages to come up with a system where the people in charge can actually be trusted to act in the common good, we can revisit this matter.

> Doesn't it make sense that there are some technical questions that are dangerous to supply an answer to?

This has a simple answer: No.

Here's Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

Everything you need to do it is in the public domain. The things preventing it have nothing to do with the information not being available. The main ones are that most people don't want to be mass murderers and actually doing it would be the fast ticket to Epic Retaliation.

Meanwhile the public understanding how things work is important to the public debate over what to do about them. How are you supposed to vote on public policy if the technical details are being censored? How can anyone tell you that a ban on electric car batteries isn't advancing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons if nobody is allowed to know how they actually work?

Suppose you're an anti-racist preparing for a debate with a racist. You want the AI to give you all the strongest arguments the racist could use so you can prepare your counterarguments in advance of the debate. Should it refuse? Of course not, you're doing nothing wrong.

Why do we need to build totalitarian censorship into our technology? We don't.

Malicious actors would always find them. Hiding information just creates a false sense of safety among public, which benefits politicians mostly.

> “Responsible information dissemination is important for maintaining public safety.”

That word responsible is doing a lot of hand wavy work there.

Let's start with, responsible according to whom, and responsible to whom?

Learning thinking skills and learning self regulation in response to information, disinformation, or too much information, might be better societal aims than suppression.