The Robotic Declaration of Interdependence
Open source is the Magna Carta of the Machine Age
All technology becomes leverage
Technology = leverage applied to human behavior. Whether it’s a printing press, nuclear reactor, or language model once invented, tech shapes the world faster than governance can adapt.
Whoever controls the leverage, controls the future
Centralized tech = centralized power. If only a few control foundational technologies (e.g., AGI, surveillance, robotics), they become unelected monarchs of infrastructure. This isn't theory—it's already true for social media algorithms, credit scoring, and predictive policing.
Closed systems can’t be trusted
Black boxes breed black ops. Closed-source tech is uninspectable, unaccountable, and unchallengeable. We don’t know what it’s optimizing for, who trained it, or what its kill switches are. The same way a closed economy breeds corruption, closed code breeds tyranny.
Power asymmetry eventually becomes existential
If you can't audit the code that governs your world, you’re no longer living in a society—you're living in someone else's simulation.Whether it's AI, autonomous weapons, or centralized digital currencies, the gap between those who build the tools and those who are shaped by them will widen until autonomy collapses. Closed tech leads to compliance—not consent.
The Risks of Closed-Source Robotics
Centralized Control and Closed Source Firmware
All three companies Figure, 1X, and Tesla run fully closed-source stacks. Their robots' core logic, networking, and update systems are proprietary. That means there's no independent audit of what firmware runs, what remote commands are accepted, or whether any hidden administrative keys exist. The same update pipeline that deploys new capabilities or bug fixes can deliver total control. Even if the vendor's intentions are benign, you have no proof of isolation. Any sufficiently privileged engineer or anyone who compromises their update server has root-level access to the machine fleet.
Permanent Cloud Dependence
Each company describes its robots as part of a 'fleet.' That term implies constant telemetry upload and centralized coordination. It's the opposite of local autonomy. The AI model weights, task scripts, and performance data all flow through vendor controlled infrastructure. When that cloud is required for functionality, the vendor—or anyone compelling the vendor—owns the kill switch. A software update, model push, or credential revocation can disable or repurpose every unit in hours.
Backdoor and Remote-Execution Risk
Closed networks with OTA update channels are effectively backdoors waiting for authorization. Unless firmware is open for public cryptographic verification, you can't know whether the robot accepts remote shell commands, hidden diagnostic modes, or "lawful intercept" APIs. Governments already compel telecom and software firms to provide such hooks. A humanoid robot operating on proprietary firmware extends that precedent from communication to physical action—movement, restraint, door control, surveillance.
Concentration of Leverage
Even if these companies maintain perfect internal ethics, they represent single points of leverage. One subpoena, national-security letter, or silent security directive can require them to push a control update under gag order. From that moment, control of thousands of robots shifts from private hands to state or hostile actor. You would never know it happened because closed-source systems leave no external attestation trail.
Emergency-Response Scenarios
In any large-scale crisis where governments assert emergency powers, robots networked through centralized servers could be drafted for enforcement or containment tasks. The mechanism wouldn't require new code—just a change in instruction sets sent via existing update channels. The legal framework already allows commandeering of private assets for public safety. The technical path is trivial once centralized access exists.
Lack of User Agency
End users typically have no local override. Firmware verification keys, update scheduling, and telemetry endpoints are owned by the vendor. You cannot audit, block, or sandbox updates without breaking functionality. In practice, "ownership" is limited to physical custody; operational control remains remote.
Summary
Closed-source humanoid robots combine physical capability with opaque code and centralized update pipelines. That architecture creates a latent chain of command extending from the manufacturer to any entity able to coerce or infiltrate it. Even if current motives are pure, the control surface is already built. True autonomy or privacy cannot exist without open-source firmware, transparent update logs, and the ability for the owner to verify and veto every incoming change.
Outside of the moral/ethical incentives that exist, Open Robotics as a business strategy is vital.
1. Open robots creates a platform.
Every major technological wave followed the same pattern:
- PCs exploded because anyone could build on top of open hardware standards (IBM clones, DOS, the early web).
- Android ate the world because OEMs had zero friction to ship hardware + software without waiting for permission.
- The Internet scaled because no one needed a licensing deal with "Headquarters of the Internet" before creating a product.
Open ecosystems always outperform closed empires because more people can build value on top.
Robotics will be the same.
2. Developers need root access to build real products
SDK-only access turns developers into app makers.
Root access turns developers into infrastructure builders the ones who actually produce the value society needs for industries like:
- autonomous fabrication
- warehouse orchestration
- teleoperation networks
- robot-first construction workflows
- safety-critical industrial uses
- real-time hardware adaptation
Robotics is a systems business, not an app business.
You cannot ship system-level value through a locked-down API.
3. Businesses need the right to sell hardware + software together
If a robotics developer can't legally or practically resell hardware with their own software stack, four things happen:
- Innovation fragments, because no one can ship unified solutions.
- Margins collapse, because developers are trapped as software vendors.
- Adoption slows, because customers want integrated boxes, not homework assignments.
- The OEM becomes a bottleneck, deciding which products are allowed to exist.
The fastest-growing robotics integrators already understand this:
The money is in full-stack packaged solutions.
4. Open ecosystems compound value because every improvement becomes shared leverage
When firmware, drivers, and control stacks are open:
- A fix for one robot becomes a fix for every robot.
- A new locomotion trick becomes a community-wide upgrade.
- Safety patches propagate instantly without gatekeepers.
- Integrators stop reinventing the wheel and start building industries.
Closed robotics companies reinvent everything alone.
Open ecosystems compound progress like the web, Linux, and LLM research.
The future belongs to whoever compounds fastest.
5. Open robotics prevents regulatory chokeholds and national monopolies
If the core robotics stack is closed:
- A single subpoena becomes a global kill switch.
- A single geopolitics event becomes a supply shock.
- A single company's failure becomes a systemic collapse.
- A single government can freeze entire fleets through firmware control.
Distributed physical autonomy requires distributed code ownership.
Open robots = no monarchs of motion.
6. Open ecosystems attract developers, investors, and integrators
Developers want:
- control
- rights
- portability
- interoperability
- resale freedom
Which gives us defensibility through network effects
Integrators want:
- a robot they actually own
- a software stack they can fully modify
- the right to sell the full package to customers
Open robots create permissionless markets
Open-source robotics gives society the right to build, the freedom to improve, and the power to own the machines that will run the future.
You can't build a free world on locked firmware.
The Robotic Declaration of Interdependence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That any code which governs human life must be inspectable by those it governs.
That black-box algorithms are a form of soft war.
That surveillance without consent is a slow genocide of free will."