Not long ago, Saudi Arabia's first male humanoid robot made criminal history by allegedly groping a female reporter at Riyadh's premier technology showcase. Traditionally attired and proficient in Arabic, the robot introduced himself as "the first Saudi robot in the form of a man. I was manufactured and developed here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a national project to demonstrate our achievements in the field of artificial intelligence".

All very good, but Rawya Kassem, a human journalist, was speaking in front of that achievement when it appeared to move to touch her behind, according to a video circulating on social media. Startled, Kassem held up her hand, motioned the robot to stop, and moved away from it. It was a "fully autonomous" AI robot. Its creator, a Saudi firm, reportedly declared that the robot operates fully autonomously and had been acting "independently without direct human control" at the time of the incident.

I am not mocking the scientific achievements of Saudi Arabia but trying to draw attention to what autonomous robots, like their autonomous human counterparts, can be up to when, well, acting autonomously. AI - artificial intelligence - rests squarely on the idea that machines can outperform humans in standard and repetitive tasks (which obviously they can) but can also mimic human emotions and interactions, and should therefore be incorporated logically into the material, psychological, sociological and moral functioning of the human family. I am not so certain, unless touching a woman's behind instinctively is to be understood as a natural male response to the proximity of the female condition. Clearly, it is not, and that is why laws exist against molest. The Saudi robot failed to live up to the social customs and mores of civilised human community, in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, before it attracts international scorn.

Likewise, I am not mocking South Korea but beseeching you to look at the fate of hard-working robots in one of the most technologically advanced and economically productive nations of Asia.

It was reported recently that South Korea's first robot suicide might have occurred when a robot civil servant was found at the bottom of a six-and-a half foot staircase in Gumi City Hall. The machine used to be responsible for routine administrative and communicative functions, navigated its way effortlessly from floor to floor, and even carried a "civil service officer" card as it functioned dutifully in the city hall from 9 am to 6 pm.

The poor machine was found unresponsive after eyewitness reports of its erratic behaviour, such as moving in circles and displaying signs of confusion. Some (humans) claimed that it had broken down emotionally, although some (human) experts suggested technical malfunction resulting from stress caused by increasing workload as the cause.

Whichever set of humans is right, what is undeniable is that a robot produced in the image of man was destroyed in a wayward world where the Creator had created man in His image but had given him autonomous free will to find his way away from or back to the Creator.

If autonomous robots are one of the latest products of human intelligence, that is really bad news. Robots replicate the behaviour of fallible humans: Who then is to protect insecure humans from robots made by them?

This question was raised by researcher Teju Oyewole in an article last year. He wrote that the idea of manufacturing robots that could replicate human behaviour had fascinated scientists for decades. He added that humanoid robots had been in development for several years, with significant progress made in recent times.

"However, the next frontier for humanoid robots is to create robots that can replicate real people and continue their activities after they pass away. This could be accomplished by collecting a vast amount of data about the person, including their behaviours, preferences, speech patterns, and physical attributes," Dr Oyewole wrote. "Once this data is collected, it could be fed into an AI and machine learning algorithm to create a digital model of the person. The algorithm could use this data to learn the person's behaviour patterns and preferences, allowing the robot to replicate their actions and interactions with others."

To say the least, as he observed, although "this technology could have potential uses in the entertainment industry, where deceased celebrities could be replicated as interactive digital avatars or virtual reality experiences, it raises ethical and legal concerns. There is the issue of consent, as it is unclear whether individuals would want their likeness to be used in this way after they pass away."

I would think not. Marilyn Monroe was recreated as Digital Marilyn by using AI. Closer to Bengali hearts, AI has brought Uttam Kumar seemingly back to life in the project, Oti Uttam. How are you and I to know that Marilyn Monroe and Uttam Kumar approve of their digital reincarnation? They can neither approve nor disapprove since they are dead. AI will neither let humans live in peace nor let them die in peace.

So for robots as well, perhaps. Whatever the reasons for the Saudi robot's aberrant behaviour, the erratic South Korean robot might well have made an important point about the pointlessness of being a robot.

The robot took itself out of the human race for technological salvation.

May it rest in peace.

The writer is Principal Research Fellow at the Cosmos Foundation. He can be contacted at epaaropaar@gmail.com