Boston Dynamics beforehand signed an open letter pledging to not weaponize its robotic. | Supply: Boston Dynamics
Robotics consultants testified on the Massachusetts State Home final week in help of laws selling the secure, moral use of robotics statewide.. The panel included Tom Ryden, govt director of MassRobotics, Kelly Peterson, assistant common counsel of compliance at Boston Dynamics, and Grant Baker, senior supervisor of presidency affairs on the Affiliation for Uncrewed Car Programs Worldwide (AUVSI).
They testified in favor of S.1208, a invoice that’s presently making its method by way of the Massachusetts legislature. The “Act to make sure the accountable use of superior robotic applied sciences” outlines guidelines and rules to make sure individuals use robots responsibly.
“This Act supplies tips to point out and clearly point out what’s allowed and what’s not allowed for robotics, and we consider it’s an essential factor,” Ryden stated throughout the listening to. “It might enable Massachusetts to be first and lead the nation in this sort of laws, and so we’re in favor of this and strongly help it.”
This isn’t the primary time organizations have advocated for the moral use of robots. In 2022, for instance, Boston Dynamics signed an open letter pledging to not weaponize robots, together with different robotics builders Agility Robotics, ANYBotics, Clearpath Robotics, Open Robotics, and Unitree. The group gained an RBR50 Robotics Innovation Award from The Robotic Report for the pledge.
In 2024, MassRobotics participated in a Congressional Robotics Caucus Briefing on Constructing Towards a Nationwide Robotics Technique. The briefing additionally included the Nationwide Science Basis (NSF) and Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI).
If it’s handed, S.1208 would make it illegal to switch, promote, or function a robotic machine geared up with or mounted with a weapon. Moreover, it could make it illegal to make use of a robotic to threaten to commit a criminal offense, bodily restrain, or harass one other particular person.
“The very last thing we would like, or that the business wants, is for any of those gadgets within the arms of customers to be weaponized,” Peterson stated. But, now we have seen examples of that on YouTube, sadly, together with individuals mounting machine weapons to robotic canine and promoting flamethrower-equipped robots. This Act addresses this misuse.”
The laws outlines some exceptions to those guidelines. It doesn’t apply to the U.S. Division of Protection (DOD) and its numerous departments and businesses, the Massachusetts Nationwide Guard, and protection industrial firms throughout the scope of contracts with the DOD. It additionally consists of particular permissions for individuals who acquire a waiver from the legal professional common for testing or instructional functions.
The Act additionally included exceptions for regulation enforcement officers to make use of robotics to diffuse or get rid of explosives, destroy property when there may be an imminent menace of demise, and for testing and coaching functions.
Moreover, the Act says that regulation enforcement should acquire a warrant, or different legally required judicial authorization, earlier than utilizing robotic gadgets on non-public property. This is applicable to any state of affairs the place an officer would require a warrant for entry.
Principally, it says if an officer wants a warrant to enter a constructing, then so would a robotic. This additionally applies to conducting surveillance or location monitoring in conditions that may in any other case require a warrant.
“It’s of probably the most important significance that measures similar to this be taken to advertise secure operations of those techniques,” Baker stated. “That is essential not simply in selling public security, however in constructing public belief and confidence in superior robotics.”
