When to Start Panicking about Killer Robots

If you’ve seen one too many sci-fi movies (or five minutes of West World), you might think artificially intelligent humanoid robots can, and likely will, outsmart their creators.

After all, over the past century, humanoid robotics technology has accelerated from barely-believable Disney animatronics, to emotive, joke-cracking, robotic citizens. It’s not a stretch to envision what’s next. However, although potentially unsettling, modern artificial intelligence technology shouldn’t have you perusing panic room catalogs just yet. Or should it?

RobotHumanShadows

High-Tech One-Hit Wonders

It is true that robotic devices developed in the past few decades can perform some truly remarkable tasks, such as have interactive conversations, dance, or do parkour. But, all of these amazing machines fall into two categories: they can move well, or they can think well. None can do both – yet.

For example, Boston Dynamics is a robotics company that has built several robots with eerily life-like movement capabilities. Take their creation Big Dog. When pushed, this robot almost looks like a scared deer recovering from a fall. These machines, such as their newer creation called Handle, have both reflexes and complicated controls that allow them to move in uncertain environments with extreme precision, carrying heavy weights and performing multiple tasks. However, they aren’t exactly stimulating conversation partners.

On the other hand, there are robots that very convincingly interact with humans, such as the now-famous Sophia from Hanson Robotics. Sophia can converse with humans relatively seamlessly. She can learn from conversations over time, tell jokes, and even throw shade. But her movements are clunky and relatively non-existent.

Robots are designed to specialize in one task – they can either walk or talk but cannot yet do both. As prominent roboticist and Oregon State computer science professor Thomas Diettrich, Ph.D., explained in an interview with Tech Insider, “No [artificial intelligence] system comes anywhere close to having this immense breadth of capabilities, particularly when it comes to combining vision, language, and physical manipulation” (Del Prado, 2016). What happens when there is a robot that excels in all of these tasks? At that point, it might be time to consider investing in some off-grid property.

Walking the Walk so You Can Talk the Talk

Why does movement matter when talking about artificial intelligence? As MIT neuroscientist Daniel Wolpert, Ph.D. puts it, mammals have brains so that we can move. Evolutionarily speaking, mammals developed the ability to perform complex movements like walking before we developed higher cognitive abilities, such as speech.

Moving and interacting with your environment is the best way to learn, even for robots. Peter Norvig, Ph.D and director of research at Google agreed. “Reasoning [in artificial intelligence] will be improved as we develop systems that continuously sense and interact with the world, as opposed to learning systems that passively observe information that others have chosen,” Norvig explains (Del Prado, 2016).

Take, for example, a baby learning to talk. Although you don’t remember it, you probably learned what a ball was by seeing a ball, grabbing it, maybe even putting it in your mouth a few dozen times, all while someone repeated the word “ball” over and over. You were eventually able to define what the word “ball” meant by recalling your interactions with that object. This is likely why early motor skills are predictive language development (Bedford et al., 2016). Observations like these have led cognitive neuroscientists to develop the theory of embodied cognition. This theory suggests that cognitive functions – understanding the emotions of others, developing likes and dislikes, and communicating with those around you, to name a few – are rooted in our physical experiences with the environment, and the sensations we feel from those experiences. Essentially, you know what awkwardness is because you accidentally called your first-grade teacher ‘mom’ once or accidentally said “Love you!” before hanging up the phone with your boss.

An entire body of developmental and neural imaging evidence supports this theory, showing that we use our own sensory and motor experiences for complex cognitive processes such as understanding the actions of others (Grafton, 2009) and the meaning of words (Pulvermuller, 2005). Fortunately for us, or unfortunately if you are a roboticist, manmade machines do not yet possess this ability.

Moving Towards Independent Thought

For a robot to have true, rich artificial intelligence they have to be able to think and learn without supervision. At the moment, robots have a hard time generating their own opinions about the environment because they can’t fully – or perhaps more importantly, independently –  experience the environment. If you tell a robot to “push” or to “walk,” they typically understand what you mean because someone went into the code and defined what those words meant, not because the machine defined it for themselves by actually pushing or walking. Deb Roy, Ph.D and a professor at MIT working on robots that understand language through physical interaction, describes this as “the machine [getting] caught in circular chains of dictionary-like definitions.” (Roy, 2005). Their group has managed to create Ripley, a robot that can physically interact with objects to form its own opinions about the environment. However, these types of machines still have a long way to go before engaging in rich social interactions as well as complicated physical movements.

So what’s holding us back from developing robots that can move, sense, and think? It seems that researchers investigating things like movement and sensations in humans and robots are largely separated from roboticists developing cognitive algorithms. Similar to Dr. Roy, Dr. Fancesca Odone and colleagues are working to develop the cognitive and physical skills of iCub, a robot that can independently learn to visually recognize objects and perform physical manipulations. Fanello et al. (2017) explain that  “In spite of the complementary challenges, cognitive robotics and computer vision mainly proceeded on independent tracks.” To enable robots to walk and talk, perhaps researchers across fields must first talk to each other.

We’re Safe. For now.

Until robots can form experience-based definitions of the things they interact with through their own movement, we are probably safe from the potential robot apocalypse. When robots develop the ability to learn from their own physical experience – experience they gain themselves by interacting with the environment through coordinated movement – that is when their thinking will become truly independent.

Who knows, maybe if we show them our good side, robots will like humans and decide to live harmoniously with their creators. However, since Sophia recently learned to walk, and seems to have other plans, you might want to keep those panic room catalogs within arm’s reach.

 

Works Cited

Bedford, R., Pickles, A., & Lord, C. (2016). Early gross motor skills predict the subsequent development of language in children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 9(9), 993-1001.

Del Prado, G. M. (2016, March 09). Experts explain the biggest obstacles to creating human-like robots. https://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-challenges-human-artificial-intelligence-2016-2

Fanello, S. R., Ciliberto, C., Noceti, N., Metta, G., & Odone, F. (2017). Visual recognition for humanoid robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 91, 151-168.

Grafton, S. T. (2009). Embodied cognition and the simulation of action to understand others. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 97-117.

Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576.

Roy, D. (2005). Semiotic schemas: A framework for grounding language in action and perception. Artificial Intelligence, 167(1-2), 170-205.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.