Massachusetts lawmakers consider 'killer robots' bill

Back in mid-September, a pair of Massachusetts lawmakers introduced a bill “to ensure the responsible use of advanced robotic technologies.” What that means in the simplest and most direct terms is legislation that would ban the manufacture, sale and use of armed robots.

It is an interesting proposal for several reasons. The first is the general lack of state and national laws in the United States that regulate these growing concerns. It's one of those things that has felt like science fiction to such an extent that many policymakers had no interest in applying it pragmatically.

Of course, it's not just science fiction and it hasn't been for a long time. To put it bluntly, the United States has been using robots (drones) to kill people for more than 20 years. But as rude as it may seem, people tend to view these technologies very differently when it comes to their own backyard.

However, concerns about “killer robots” are much broader than simple military applications. In fact, some are still based on typical Terminators; I, Robots; and Five Nights at Freddy's. Others are much more rooted. Remember when MSCHF set up a paintball gun at a location to make a point? How about all the pictures of Ghost Robots with sniper rifles?

While it's still not an everyday occurrence, there is also precedent for police using robots to kill. The week of Independence Day 2016, the Dallas Police Department killed a suspect by mounting a bomb on a bomb defuser robot. Whatever one thinks about the wisdom and ethics of such a move, it cannot be credibly argued that the robot was doing the job it was built to do. Quite the opposite, in fact.

More recently, the potential use of armed robots by law enforcement has been a political lightning rod in places like Oakland and San Francisco. Last October, Boston Dynamics joined forces with Agility, ANYbotics, Clearpath Robotics and Open Robotics to sign an open letter condemning the use of “general purpose” robots as weapons.

It said, in part:

We believe that adding weapons to robots that are operated remotely or autonomously, widely available to the public, and capable of navigating to previously inaccessible places where people live and work, raises new risks of harm and serious ethical issues. Weaponized applications of these newly capable robots will also damage public trust in the technology in ways that will undermine the enormous benefits they will bring to society.

With this in mind, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that Spot's creator played a key role in planting the seed for this proposed new legislation. Earlier this week, I spoke about the bill with Massachusetts State Representative Lindsay Sabadosa, who introduced it along with Massachusetts State Senator Michael Moore.

What is the status of the invoice?

We're in an interesting position, because there are a lot of moving parts to the bill. The bill has already had a hearing, which is wonderful news. We are working with the committee on the language of the bill. They've had some questions about why different pieces were written the way they were written. We're doing that technical language review now and also consulting with all stakeholders to make sure that everyone who needs to be at the table is at the table.

When you say “stakeholders”. . .

The interested parties are companies that produce robotics. The Spot robot, produced by Boston Dynamics, and other robots as well, are used by entities such as the Boston Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police. They could be used by the fire department. So, we're talking to those people to review the bill and talk about what the changes are. For the most part, what we heard is that the bill doesn't really change much for those stakeholders. In reality, the bill is to stop regular people from trying to weaponize robots, not to stop the very good uses robots are currently put to.

Does the bill also apply to law enforcement?

We are not trying to prevent authorities from using robots. And what we have heard repeatedly from authorities is that they are often used to defuse situations. They talk a lot about barricade situations or hostage situations. I don't want to be scary, but if people are still alive, if there are injuries, they say it often helps to de-escalate, rather than sending in officers, which we know can often escalate the situation. So no, we wouldn't change any of those uses. The legislation requires authorities to obtain court orders for the use of robots if they use them instead of sending a police officer. That's already quite common. Law enforcement has to do that if it's not an emergency situation. We're really just saying, “Please follow current protocol. And if you're going to use a robot instead of a human, let's make sure that protocol remains the standard.”

I'm sure you've been following the stories from places like San Francisco and Oakland, where there is an attempt to weaponize robots. Is that included in this?

We haven't had law enforcement use robots as weapons, and no one has said, “We'd like to attach a weapon to a robot” by law enforcement in Massachusetts. I think because of some of those past conversations there has been a desire not to go down that path. And I think local communities would probably have a lot to say if police started doing that. So while the legislation doesn't prohibit it completely, we don't tolerate it either.

Image credits: MSCHF

Is there no attempt to preempt the bill?

Not in the legislation. People who use dogs to hunt by putting weapons on them and things like that, that's not something we want to see.

Is there any opposition currently?

We have had no opposition to the legislation. We certainly had questions from interested parties, but everything has been relatively positive. We have found that most people, even with the suggested adjustments to the legislation, feel that there is common ground that we can reach.

What types of questions do you receive from interested parties?

Well, the first question we always get is, “Why is this important?”

You would think that would be something that stakeholders would understand.

But many times (companies ask) what is the intention behind this? Is it because we're trying to do something that's not obvious, or are we really just trying to make sure there's no misuse? I think Boston Dynamics is trying to say, “We want to get ahead of potential misuse of our robots before something happens.” I think that's smart.

Hasn't there been pushback around issues of stifling innovation?

I do not think. In fact, I think the robotics trade association agrees. And then, of course, Boston Dynamics is really leading the charge on this. We have received thank you notes from companies, but we have not received any rejection from them. And our goal is not to stifle innovation. I think there are many wonderful things that robots will be used for. I appreciate how they can be used in situations that would be very unsafe for humans. But I don't think attaching weapons to robots is really an area of ​​innovation that many companies are exploring.

An aerial general view during a game between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees on August 13, 2022 at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts (Photo by Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox/Getty Images).

Massachusetts is a progressive state, but it's interesting that it's one of the first to pass a bill like this, since Boston is one of the world's leading robotics hubs.

That's why we wanted to be the first to do it. I am hopeful that we will also be the first to get the legislation across the finish line. You asked if it was stifling innovation. I've argued that this bill helps because it gives companies this modicum of assurance to say, “We're not producing these products for nefarious purposes. This innovation is really good.” I have heard people say that we should be careful. That roboticists are just trying to create robopolice. That's not what these companies are doing. They are trying to create robots for very specific situations that can be very useful and help save human lives. So I think that's worthy. We see this as supporting the robotics industry, rather than trying to hinder it.

Were those stories from places like San Francisco and Oakland an inspiration behind the creation of the bill?

I honestly think they were for Boston Dynamics. They looked for us.

So, did Boston Dynamics drive the initial conversation?

Yes, which is why, in my view, this is a bill that helps, rather than hinders.

A version of this article first appeared in TechCrunch's robotics newsletter, Actuator. Subscribe here.