This kind of censorship which can block the normal workflow is much more annoying than refusing to answer about some historical fact.
Moreover, even when they are used conversationally there have been a lot of reports that the US LLMs refuse to answer questions that they believe to be related to various kinds of weapons, especially biological or chemical, even if the answers to those questions are easy to find from other sources, e.g. from Wikipedia.
Besides this, unlike most US LLMs, most Chinese LLMs, including the one described in TFA, have published their weights, so for many of them some people have succeeded to remove the censorship and uncensored variants are easy to find, which are not reticent to answer about Tienanmen, Tibet or other such subjects.
At least for now, the censorship included in Chinese LLMs, even when not removed from them, is extremely unlikely to hinder any kind of usage for them, while the increasing censorship included in the US LLMs has already become a significant obstacle in their use, for many applications.
> a lot of reports that the US LLMs refuse to answer questions
I think the specific ask is for a case where the LLM is trained to lie about something. What you've come up with are cases where it refuses to do something, possibly for legal reasons but maybe not (you can come up with plausible non-legal reasons why a company training an LLM might want it to refuse to give you instructions on making a bomb, even if instructions on making a bomb are protected First Amendment speech).
An LLM that responds with "I'm sorry, due to legal requirements placed on my creators, I'm unable to answer questions about events at Tiananmen square in 1989." strikes me as much less problematic than one that pretends there is no relevant or reliable information that exists, or explicitly supports a regime narrative. But I'm also of the opinion that an LLM refusing to help you build a fertilizer bomb is much more reasonable than one that suppresses information of a political nature. I can't think of a case where information that reflects the broad consensus of experts is suppressed by US based LLMs for political reasons.