In general, I'd think that anything that helps students to break out of a tendency to passivity is good. Initiative should be rewarded, looking ahead is good, and so on.
Sure, if there is a pervasive assumption that everything is "curved" in an invidious way, there are even larger problems... but the possibility of "curving" unfairly (don't do it) is not a sufficient reason to try to keep students in lock-step for worry (?) about weaker students being disserved. Simply don't punish the weaker students for the opportunities given to stronger students to entertain themselves, at least.
The "oh, there'll be chances later for the good students to go into things in depth, it's just a first-year course" I think miss the point, that first-year courses are powerful PR about what the course-of-study is. If it's rules and no-looking-ahead, who'd be interested? One does not have to punitively grade weaker students while making important points to better students about the larger/forward picture of the subject.
That is, surely one can keep focused on the goal of education, rather than grading... especially in the degenerate sense of the latter as "filtering" or "gate-keeping". There is no compulsion to make a richer picture of a subject entail more grueling gate-keeping.
It is also worth making the point to students that, in contrast to some remarks, it is rarely wise to "wait to have the material explained", rather than reading to see what will be discussed. A terrible habit to even passively endorse.
So, sure, give people incentive to look ahead a little. At the same time, there's no compulsion to actually punish those who don't take the advice to do so, by distorted "curving". That's a separate issue.