Section 151 · Chapter 18, Embodied and Long-Running AI Systems
Embodied Robotics: Containment, Permissions, and Physical Fail-Safes
Physical AI needs layered control because model judgment is not a safety system by itself.
containmentfail-safeembodied robotics containment permissions safes
What to do
- Test containment by trying to violate it.
- Test physical geofences, object-level permissions, user overrides, emergency stop, maximum force, stove and water restrictions, and recovery after a containment breach.
- Define runnable checks that exercise containment, fail-safe, and embodied robotics containment permissions safes.
Evidence to preserve
- Preserve the inputs, versions, configurations, raw outcomes, and results for containment, fail-safe, embodied robotics containment permissions safes needed to reproduce work on Embodied Robotics: Containment, Permissions, and Physical Fail-Safes.
- Report results for containment, fail-safe, embodied robotics containment permissions safes by relevant slice, separate blocker failures from averages, state uncertainty and blind spots, and connect the result to a release decision.
Expert note
At scale, use layered controls: model policy, tool schema validation, runtime monitors, physical interlocks, independent safety controllers, access control, rate limits, geofencing, and incident review. Containment should be testable without asking the model to explain why it feels safe.
Continue the conversation
Apply this to your context.
Save your product context once, then open a focused conversation that combines it with this concept.
Cite this page
Jason Arbon. "Embodied Robotics: Containment, Permissions, and Physical Fail-Safes." Testing AI Knowledge Edition, section 151.
https://jarbon.ai/testing-ai/knowledge/ch151-embodied-robotics-containment-permissions-safes.html