[silenced_trope]

I've mentioned in past posts that the terms "safety" when applied to the AI discussion are never quantified or qualified in any way.

It's more of a smear. If you're the one arguing from an AI safety standpoint, it means your opponent is not being safe and is dangerous.

You should be expected to articulate why your position is "safer" and how "safe" is defined.

In my opinion most AI safety arguments are about vaguely defined variables like speed: "it's going too fast" - to who? who defines what fast is? do you slow down 2x or 10x? do competitors and/or rival nations less concerned zip by and the end result is still the same?

There is some validity to the discussion if AI is being "racist" or "biased" (again however you define these) but again competitors and/or rival nations may be less concerned and the end result may still be the same.

If anything the "safest" option is to define what your concerns are, then race ahead to try to be the canonical solution or defined standard in order to set standards for the rest to follow or be bound by.