When I read a tweet about four noted Silicon Valley executives being inducted into a special detachment of the United States Army Reserve, including Meta CTO Andrew "Boz" Bosworth, I questioned its veracity. It's very hard to discern truth from satire in 2025, in part because of social media sites owned by Bosworth's company. But it indeed was true. Boz is now Lieutenant Colonel Bosworth. The other newly commissioned officers include Kevin Weil, OpenAI's head of product; Bob McGrew, a former OpenAI head of research now advising Mira Murati's company Thinking Machines Lab; and Shyam Sankar, the CTO of Palantir.

For starters, it has no head. And instead of kibble and water, it runs on a lithium-ion battery. When the four-legged robot, which can climb stairs, open doors and transmit 360-degree video, was unveiled a few years ago, it was billed as a potent new tool for industries whose workers are often in dangerous conditions. It could, for example, detect radiation for an energy company or inspect the safety of a mining tunnel, its creator, Boston Dynamics, touted said in promotional material. And police officials around the U.S. realized Spot, which its inventors named, also offered an upgrade from the slower, less agile robots currently used in hostage situations, assessing suspicious packages and other high-risk situations.

Over the past couple of weeks, many were shocked to learn that the police in San Francisco want to use lethally armed robots. But the real surprise is that the proposal took so long. After all, six years ago the police in Dallas used a lethally armed robot to kill a barricaded sniper who had fatally shot five officers. The Dallas police generally received praise for their decision, even as it drew concerns about a new police tactic deployed without any prior guidelines in place. Even if San Francisco ultimately decides to shelve its approval of lethally armed police robots, that won't end the matter.

In November, the San Francisco Police Department proposed approving the use of remote-controlled robots with deadly force. This was after a law came into effect requiring California officials to define the authorized use of military-grade equipment. It would have allowed police to equip robots with explosives "to contact, incapacitate or disorient violent, armed or dangerous suspects." San Francisco's Board of Supervisors approved this proposal, initially, despite opposition by civil rights groups. However, during the second of two required votes, the board voted to ban the use of lethal force by police robots. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, this is unusual as the board's second votes typically echo the first results.

A woman holds up a sign while taking part in a demonstration about the use of robots by the San Francisco Police Department outside of City Hall in San Francisco on Monday. A woman holds up a sign while taking part in a demonstration about the use of robots by the San Francisco Police Department outside of City Hall in San Francisco on Monday. SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco supervisors voted Tuesday to put the brakes on a controversial policy that would let police use robots for deadly force. The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to explicitly ban the use of robots in such fashion for now. But they sent the issue back to a committee for further discussion and could allow it in limited cases at another time.

San Francisco leaders voted to allow the city's police department to use potentially lethal robots in emergency situations. "Under this policy, SFPD is authorized to use these robots to carry out deadly force in extremely limited situations when risk to loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available," City Supervisor Rafael Mandelman wrote on Twitter. San Francisco leaders voted 8-3 on Tuesday in support of the new policy. The San Francisco Police Department has 17 robots, but none are armed with guns, and the department has no plans to do so. The department could deploy robots equipped with explosive charges "to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect" during emergency situations when lives are at risk, according to a police department spokesperson.

Police in San Francisco will be allowed to deploy potentially lethal, remote-controlled robots in emergency situations. The controversial policy was approved after weeks of scrutiny and a heated debate among the city's board of supervisors during their meeting on Tuesday. Police oversight groups, the ACLU and San Francisco's public defender had urged the 11-member body to reject the police's use of equipment proposal. Opponents of the policy said it would lead to further militarization of a police force already too aggressive with underserved communities. They said the parameters under which use would be allowed were too vague.

Law enforcement has used robots to investigate suspicious packages. Now, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a policy proposal that would allow SFPD's robots to use deadly force against a suspect. Law enforcement has used robots to investigate suspicious packages. Now, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering a policy proposal that would allow SFPD's robots to use deadly force against a suspect. Should robots working alongside law enforcement be used to deploy deadly force?

San Francisco district attorney Brooke Jenkins provides update on the assault on Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi in press conference. San Francisco authorities have proposed a policy that would allow its military-style robots to use deadly force in situations where someone's life is in danger and other dangerous instances. A draft policy by the San Francisco Police Department outlines how it would use its 17 remote-controlled, unmanned robots, which are often used to defuse bombs and deal with hazardous materials. "The robots listed in this section shall not be utilized outside of training and simulations, criminal apprehensions, critical incidents, exigent circumstances, executing a warrant or during suspicious device assessment," the draft states. "Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option available to SFPD."

This is a guest post. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent positions of IEEE Spectrum or the IEEE. Last week, the Dallas police killed a suspected gunman with a bomb-delivering robot. It was a desperate measure for desperate times: five law enforcement officers were killed and several more wounded before the shooter was finally cornered. Of course, the shooter needed to be stopped; preventing further murder and mayhem is always a priority. But the method, a robot bomb, was so unorthodox that it raises many ethical and policy questions, if not also legal ones.