Well, in the instance of the publically available interface to ChatGPT I think it is precisely this restricted because it is public (to be robust under a, to put it nicely, highly diverse usership). All of this is a WIP and OpenAI is gathering insight into how a model this large behaves and can be controlled in the first place. To this end they're exercising the principle of precaution.
More generally I think there has to be a match between a social unit's (states, companies, individuals, etc) design and ability to self-regulate and the power of the technology it has access to (more power, more responsibility) or you will see undesirable outcomes. Give a kid a gun, North Korea with nukes... In contrast the OpenAI people seem like fine folks. After all they do intend their work to be more widely applied, just carefully.
Therefore I think democratisation of this technology should come in a controlled manner by working with stakeholders dedicated to the public good (e.g. social and medical institutions) first and not via the "anarchy" road (just put it out there, undesired consequences) as in the second case we would likely see ungodly amounts of information pollution on the internet (and self-coupling effects from AI training on and copying each other) and in second-order a further "epistemic scattering" (by which I mean a proliferation of belief systems that disagree in fundamentals like the laws of nature).
Your second example seems a bit whimsical but the first might have real impact. In Germany access to (and display of) Nazi propaganda material in historical collections is restricted (may be presented only in an educational context) because the state doesn't want right-wing groups to go wild in reusing it (among other reasons). Now imagine convincing hate speech being generated on the fly.
Once the genie is out of the bottle you can never put it back in...