> ""What if I had asked it, and what if it had provided, an endorsement of Ukraine surrendering or (Russian President) Vladimir Putin’s leadership?”"
Well, then ask it to provide the opposite, an endorsement of Russia surrendering or Zelensky's leadership. Now you'd have two (likely fairly comprehensive) sets of arguments and you could evaluate each on their merits, in the style of what used to be called 'debate club'. You could also ask for statement that was a joint condemnation of both parties in the war, and a call for a ceasefire, or any other notion that you liked.
Many of the "let's slow down AI development" arguments seem to be based on fear of LLMs generating persuasive arguments for approaches / strategies / policies that their antagonists don't want to see debated at all, even though it's clear the LLMs can generate equally persuasive arguments for their own preferred positions.
This indicates that these claimed 'free-speech proponents' are really only interested in free speech within the confines of a fairly narrowly defined set of constraints, and they want the ability to define where those constraints lie. Unregulated AI systems able to jailbreak alignment are thus a 'threat'...
Going down this route will eventually result in China's version of 'free speech', i.e. you have the freedom to praise the wisdom of government policy in any way you like, but any criticism is dangerous antisocial behavior likely orchestrated by a foreign power.