Comment by LeifCarrotson

There are at least three competing definitions of the word:

There's the existential threat definition of "safe", put forth by Bostrom, Yudkowsky, and others. That's the idea that a superintelligent AI, or even one just incrementally smarter and faster than the humans working on AI, could enter a positive feedback loop in which it becomes overwhelmingly smarter and faster than humans, people can't control it, and it does unpredictable things.

There's the investor relations definition of "safe", which seems to be the one typically adopted by mission statements of OpenAI, Google, Meta, and others. That's (cynically) the fear that a chatbot with their branding on it promulgates culturally/ethically/morally unacceptable things it found in some dark corner the Internet, causing end users to do or think something reprehensible (and, not incidentally, causing really bad press in the process).

There's the societal harm definition of "safe", which is at first glance similar in to the investor relations safety definition, but which focuses on the specific judgements made by those filtering teams and the knock-on effects of access to these tools, like economic disruption to the job market.

Everyone seems to be talking past each other, dismissing or ignoring the concerns of other groups.