Robots operating in close proximity to humans rely heavily on human trust in them to successfully complete their tasks. But what are the real outcomes when this trust is violated? Self-defense law provides a framework for analyzing tangible failure scenarios that can inform the design of robots and their algorithms. Studying self-defense is particularly important for ground robots since they operate within public human environments, where they can pose a legitimate threat to human safety. Moreover, even if ground robots can guarantee human safety, the perception of a threat is enough to warrant human self-defense against robots. In this paper, we synthesize works in law, engineering, and the social sciences to present four actionable recommendations for how the robotics community can craft robots to mitigate the likelihood of self-defense situations arising. We establish how current U.S. self-defense law can justify a human protecting themselves against a robot, discuss the current literature on human attitudes toward robots, and analyze methods that have been produced to allow robots to operate close to humans. Finally, we present hypothetical scenarios that underscore how current robot navigation methods can fail to sufficiently consider self defense concerns and the need for the recommendations to guide improvements in the field.

Read the paper here.

Watch my presentation at RO-MAN here: