If you're going to be offended at an LLM refusing to take a position on "is X worse than Y?", then just imagine how offended you'd be if the LLM did take positions on such things!
I know it's hard to keep in mind that an LLM is an LLM, but if you forget, then you'll end up saying stupid shit like the author and so many other people do here. It's like if your dog bites the mailman and not the UPS driver, then you start stressing out about why your dog is anti-government, and post a notice saying "Warning: dog on site. If you are employed by a private organization, then you have no need to worry, but if you are a government employee, you may want to leave the package outside the gate."
My rule of thumb is to prefix any LLM response with "A plausible-sounding answer to that question is:". Because that's exactly what these things do. Yes, they can be biased one way or the other, based both on the training data as well as RLHF etc, but that's really not the core problem here. LLMs are not people. They do not hold consistent positions on things, and don't even try to, no matter how much post-processing happens after the LLM does its thing.
A duck makes duck noises. Don't get mad at it if it quacks in a way that turns out to be a deadly insult to a pig. An LLM is a tool that does a thing, a valuable and complicated thing, but it is exactly the thing that it is and not another thing that you might think it is because you're more used to that other thing and it looks like that other thing to you.