I knew about BD's history with DARPA, of course. The issue was that my company was doing some actually really interesting non-defense work, and then decided to pivot and mount teleoperated weapons on these platforms for a new demo. That’s when I submitted my resignation :)
Human emotions and reasoning could be internally inconsistent and conflicting, yet everything is as it should be, counter-intuitively.
But as expected, others have taken their place [2]. Guilt-tripping a single non-monopoly proving useless again.
[1]: https://bostondynamics.com/news/general-purpose-robots-shoul...
[2]: https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20260323PD219/military-bosto...
That’s just marketing bs in the same vein as “Your privacy is very important to us.”. It means nothing.
The "no more military weapons" statement seems to have been after they were acquired by Hyundai.
Boston Dynamics' business is, basically, "mobility platforms." After all these years the basic development is all done; now they're pivoting to commercial markets.
There's no real difference between a "murderbot" and, say, a police riot-control platform, a fire-fighting platform, a forestry platform, etc.
They might not be explicitly developing weapon packages any more, but there are plenty of other companies who will be happy to take the money to build them onto Boston Dynamics' platforms.
Only way to solve this is DRM. War machine (or even intimidation tool) creations on their platforms is a Terms of Use violation [1]
[1]: https://bostondynamics.com/blog/an-ethical-approach-to-mobil...
He said he worked with their hardware, not that he worked for Boston Dynamics.
Entirely possible to be working with a platform provided by Boston Dynamics at a company that is not engaged in weapons development.
Sure, Boston Dynamics is a bit more obvious there, but merely having DARPA funding doesn't mean it's about killing people.