I can imagine a carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate someone by having an embedded agent in the task delegation pool command the laundry bot to punch the target's head off their shoulders.
Though like as not you're still going to be right, after all, Stuxnet happened.
"You cannot control legs for this task"
"You have 1 min for this task"
"You can only make suggestions for this task"
Anonymize identity best you can.
That's not that scary.
The principle of least privilege has been a hard learned lesson in cybersecurity. Why do we again need to first go through disasters to re-learn it in the physical world?
The idea here is Optimus-type robots that can do everything like a human and therefore don't need special infrastructure, as opposed to dedicated, immobile low-torque, low-velocity robots specifically for, say, laundry.
You can layer a safety system on top of the raw motor control but it's very complicated to define what is and isn't safe, especially when you consider what the robot is holding (and what it THINKS it is holding), where the robot is (or thinks it is) at the time, what is around it (what it thinks is about it) and so on.
Which isn't a robot-specific problem. Humans spend years learning how to subconsciously safely interact with their environment and even then fuck it up sometimes. What is robot-specific is being made of metal and having the "safe hand velocity within 10cm of a human head" function bypass be one bug or OTA update away.
People only want to run Claude in Sandbod. Understandable. Seeing Optimus roam in their household would be rather surprising.