Watch: Humanoid Robot Gets Violent In China, Attacks Factory Workers
Last Updated:
In the video, the robot can be seen moving forward uncontrollably, swinging violently and dragging its stand across the factory floor.
Humanoid robots are one of the most rapidly developing technological advancements in China. They are being utilised in a number of industries, including industrial manufacturing, service sectors and even entertainment. But no matter how useful they are, at last, they are machines run by AI and thus possess several risk factors. In what appeared to be a scene from a sci-fi thriller, a humanoid robot recently malfunctioned at a factory in China, causing chaos among the workers, according to FOX News.
A video of the shocking incident shows a robot hanging from a construction crane. The machine unexpectedly starts to flap its limbs furiously, while two workers nearby look on in shock and nervousness.
As the clip progresses, we see the robot moving forward uncontrollably, swinging violently and dragging its stand across the factory floor. The men rush to avoid being hit by the machine. Amid the chaos, the robot collapses, spilling many items from a nearby table. The video concludes with one of the workers carefully moving the machine's stand in an attempt to recover control.
The video caption reads, 'In reality? A stabilization bug + a head tether = a robot in panic mode. Not a revolt—just a reminder: lab code meets the real world, chaos ensues."
This comes when humanoid robots are becoming more integrated into everyday life. Earlier this year, Chinese tech startup Pudu Robotics released the D9, a robot capable of walking at 4.5 mph, ascending stairs, and maintaining balance when pushed – traits that more closely resemble human behaviour than before.
Last month, 21 humanoid robots joined thousands of runners in a half-marathon in Beijing, China, offering a futuristic twist to the time-honoured test of endurance. All of these machines were developed by the Beijing Innovation Centre of Humanoid Robotics.
The organisers allowed robotic participants under strict conditions. These include – the machines had to look like humans, be able to walk or run on two legs unaided, and, most importantly, not have wheels or other rolling motors. The objective was clear: if robots were to run alongside people, they needed to be human-like in terms of movement.
First Published:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
9 hours ago
- NDTV
'Forest Blizzard', 'Fancy Bear': Cyber Companies Vs Hacker Nicknames
Washington: Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto and Alphabet's Google on Monday said they would create a public glossary of state-sponsored hacking groups and cybercriminals, in a bid to ease confusion over the menagerie of unofficial nicknames for them. Microsoft and CrowdStrike said they hoped to potentially bring other industry partners and the U.S. government into the effort to identify Who's Who in the murky world of digital espionage. "We do believe this will accelerate our collective response and collective defense against these threat actors," said Vasu Jakkal, corporate vice president, Microsoft Security. How meaningful the effort ends up being remains to be seen. Cybersecurity companies have long assigned coded names to hacking groups, as attributing hackers to a country or an organization can be difficult and researchers need a way to describe who they are up against. Some names are dry and functional, like the "APT1" hacking group exposed by cybersecurity firm Mandiant or the "TA453" group tracked by Proofpoint. Others have more color and mystery, like the "Earth Lamia" group tracked by TrendMicro or the "Equation Group" uncovered by Kaspersky. Crowdstrike's evocative nicknames - "Cozy Bear" for a set of Russian hackers, or "Kryptonite Panda" for a set of Chinese ones - have tended to be the most popular, and others have also adopted the same kind of offbeat monikers. In 2016, for example, the company Secureworks - now owned by Sophos - began using the name "Iron Twilight" for the Russian hackers it previously tracked as "TG-4127." Microsoft itself recently revamped its nicknames, moving away from staid, element-themed ones like "Rubidium" to weather-themed ones like "Lemon Sandstorm" or "Sangria Tempest." But the explosion of whimsical aliases has already led to overload. When the U.S. government issued a report about hacking attempts against the 2016 election, it sparked confusion by including 48 separate nicknames attributed to a grab bag of Russian hacking groups and malicious programs, including "Sofacy," "Pawn Storm," "CHOPSTICK," "Tsar Team," and "OnionDuke." Michael Sikorski, the chief technology officer for Palo Alto's threat intelligence unit, said the initiative was a "game-changer." "Disparate naming conventions for the same threat actors create confusion at the exact moment defenders need clarity," he said. Juan-Andres Guerrero-Saade, a top researcher at the cybersecurity firm SentinelOne, was skeptical of the effort, saying the cold reality of the cybersecurity industry was that companies hoarded information. Unless that changed, he said, "this is branding-marketing-fairy dust sprinkled on top of business realities." But CrowdStrike Senior Vice President of counter adversary operations, Adam Meyers, said the move had already delivered a win by helping his analysts connect a group Microsoft called "Salt Typhoon" with one CrowdStrike dubbed "Operator Panda."
Hindustan Times
13 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
America's campus wars and its China connection
The US announced last week it is revoking the visas of hundreds of Chinese nationals studying and researching in high-value science and engineering fields. This sweeping decision by the Trump administration represents a major escalation in tensions with Beijing and is aimed at curbing what it describes as the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to steal US intellectual property through academic institutions. The decision has triggered protests from American universities and reignited debates about immigration, openness, and national security. But it also marks a turning point. For the first time in decades, the US is limiting academic access on national security grounds—a move that, while controversial, is not without justification. As someone who has taught at Duke, Stanford, Harvard, and Carnegie Mellon, I have long believed in the power of openness. The US has led in innovation precisely because it has welcomed the world's brightest minds. Over the last four decades, its top universities have drawn extraordinary talent from countries like China and India. These students have earned advanced degrees, contributed to major breakthroughs, launched start-ups, and helped build the US tech economy. Many of my students from China and India were among the most diligent, creative, and capable I have taught. At Carnegie Mellon's Silicon Valley campus, where I taught a course on exponential innovation — covering Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, cybersecurity, and synthetic biology — more than half of the class was Chinese. Most of them were outstanding and will no doubt go on to do great things. But not all Chinese students come to the US solely to learn. In 2005, I was teaching a course and conducting research at Duke University comparing engineering education in the US, China, and India. One Chinese student stood out — not for academic excellence, but for disinterest. When I asked him why he had enrolled, he told me plainly: His father was in the Chinese military, and he had been sent — on a government scholarship — to study, make contacts, and report back. Years later, a European institute contacted me to verify a recommendation letter I had supposedly written for him. I had written no such letter. It had been forged — presumably to help him gain access to sensitive research. In other cases, I met Chinese students who openly said they were on Chinese military-sponsored programmes. They worked hard to align themselves with professors conducting cutting-edge research in photonics, quantum devices, and advanced materials—fields with clear military applications. To be clear, this is not the norm. I estimate that only a small, single-digit percentage of Chinese students are sent abroad with such strategic intentions. But even a small number, when operating in critical research environments, can have an outsized impact. What troubles me more is how US universities often look the other way. At every institution where I taught, professors routinely received invitations from Chinese universities to collaborate or attend conferences — with business-class airfare, honorariums, and perks for spouses. Visiting researchers from Chinese State-linked institutions were welcomed with little scrutiny. Everyone seemed to treat it as business as usual. I myself received dozens of such invitations. I declined nearly all of them, except for a research trip to Hong Kong organised by the New York Academy of Sciences which paid $5,000. I also hosted Chinese scholars at Stanford and CMU, receiving modest stipends. At the time, my colleagues assured me this was routine and did not require disclosure. But in hindsight, I see how easily these engagements can blur into influence operations, especially in the absence of transparency. Meanwhile, America's own immigration system continues to undermine its competitiveness. Because it is so difficult for foreign students to stay after graduation, nearly all of my Chinese students returned home. They took with them the knowledge, networks, and experience they gained in the US — and many will now use that to advance China's strategic goals. If the class had been made up of 80% American citizens and 20% foreign students committed to contributing to the US, that would have felt balanced. But what I witnessed was lopsided. I increasingly worried that I might be helping train technologists who would later compete with democratic countries. That was one of the reasons I chose to step away from teaching. This doesn't warrant blanket bans. The US must remain open to the world's talent, but it also must be smart. Visa and research screening should include affiliations, risk, and research domains. If a student or researcher has ties to the Chinese military or a State-backed research initiative, they should not be allowed into the country or granted access to sensitive technologies or federally funded labs. Universities must also be held accountable. They should be required to fully disclose all foreign funding sources. Faculty should not be permitted to accept undisclosed compensation or enter into informal partnerships with institutions tied to adversarial governments. Sensitive research, particularly in dual-use technologies, must be governed by stronger security protocols — on par with those used by government contractors and national laboratories. China is not just another academic peer. It is a surveillance State, a strategic rival, and an authoritarian regime with a declared ambition to dominate critical technologies. It does not separate research from national interest, unlike democracies such as the US and India, which must now work together to protect the integrity of their institutions. Vivek Wadhwa is CEO, Vionix Biosciences. The views expressed are personal.
News18
15 hours ago
- News18
Honda Reveals Its First Electric Motorcycle
Last Updated: The model will be available in two battery options - 4.1 kWh and 6.3 kWh. The former will offer a range of around 120 km, while the latter is capable of offering 170 km. The top giant in the two-wheel segment, Honda, has finally entered the electric game, following the ongoing trend. The company has introduced its first electric motorcycle globally, named E-VO. The model will remain specific for the Chinese market as of yet. It will be sold in the homeland only for now. The plans of bringing the model to the Indian shore remain dicey. Partnership and Aesthetic According to the details, the electric set of wheels has been built in collaboration with the local partner in Guangzhou. Talking about the style and design, the maiden e-motorcycle has been given a proper café racer look, aiming to bring back the retro touch element under modern skin. It gets curved-shaped front facia, featuring a decent-sized transparent retro-style visor, paired with impressive fairing on both sides, covering most of the important parts. For the comfort level, the E-VO gets a single-piece seat unit with no grab handles for the pillion, just like typical cafe racer style. Notable Elements It comes with clip-on handlebars with multiple control elements. The bar also treated with mirrors sleek mirrors on the side, which makes it look unique in the segment. The battery-powered e-bike runs on a 16-inch wheel at the front, while the rear gets 14-inch alloy wheels. At the heart, Honda E-VO is equipped with a PMS electric motor, which is capable of offering an impressive output. The e-bike uses an aluminium chassis, cutting down the weight to give a rooted riding experience to the customers. The model will be available in two battery options – 4.1 kWh and 6.3 kWh. The former promises to offer a range of around 120 km, while the latter is capable of offering 170 km on a single charge. First Published: June 02, 2025, 16:42 IST
