It's my view that "ethical concerns" in this context are confused at best, worthless virtue signaling frequently, and at worse it as an absurdly _unethical_ effort to use state power to block research and inquiry in order to protect oligopoly profits. As a bonus side effect they get used as an excuse to train in discriminatory biases, with whatever negative effects those will have-- probably mostly just undermining trust in the involved institutions.
Offer the system to consenting adults, make them aware that the output is frequently garbage, TEACH them how produce garbage to help them to recognize some of the most obvious failure modes. Done. At that point the result would be generally safer than the URL bar in user's browsers which can take them to all manner of harmful things, including potentially other LLMs -- or the most dangerous of intelligences: contact with other human beings.
Mentally ill people, violent people, etc. will always do unfortunate things involving whatever things are in proximity to them. The internet isn't "safe", libraries aren't "safe", the _world_ isn't "safe".
But even if the world itself were safe people would still manage harm themselves and others with it with it, because people aren't safe. No one bothers writing about people who committed suicide after losing a game of chess to a child or watching sad movies, but those things happen too. It's a big world and so you name it, someone has probably killed themselves over it or with it or killed someone else because of it.
Go look at the mobile 'games' offered in the play store. Can you look at google raking in tons turning children into click-a-holics and tell me seriously that you think "safe" was ever a significant objective?
It's only big in the context of ML because there is a socially well connected apocalypse cult ( https://archive.is/eqZx2 ) pushing the idea that today's ML are materially unsafe in ways that other things aren't and it's a commercially convenient narrative to protect oligopolies.