Everyone is focused on building robots. Somebody has to prove what they did.
Chicago, IL
Joined August 2026
- Tweets21
- Following60
- Followers4
- Likes21
Pask retweeted
Amazon runs more than 1 million robots. It says its robotic sites typically need 30% more people in reliability, maintenance and engineering, and its robot maintenance techs are up over 30%.
Robots scale. So does upkeep.
Every robot needs a keeper.
arstechnica.com/ai/2026/10/iβ¦
Pask retweeted
Last night I made two videos for Pask while MNF played in the background. The spoof you're seeing here is one of them.
The other was an explainer. Six months ago, the same work would have taken me four times as long.
AI doesn't need to be involved in everything, but it has made trying ideas like this a lot easier.
Whichever tools you choose, you can find new ways to talk about your business or something you care about.
The videos aren't perfect, and I don't need them to be. I'm trying to get a simple message across and have some fun doing it.
The fun factor goes up because I'm spending less time getting lost in the nuts and bolts of video creation. That's a job for my @bot !
For anyone new to Pask, think of a notary for robot records. The idea is to give people a signed record they can check, rather than asking them to take your word for it.
Tell me if you catch the Mad Max reference. Enjoy! π€π₯
Pask retweeted
A little Mad Max inspiration for a @PaskWitness spoof. @Actionrob made this while Monday Night Football played in the background. Enjoy!
Last night I made two videos for Pask while MNF played in the background. The spoof you're seeing here is one of them.
The other was an explainer. Six months ago, the same work would have taken me four times as long.
AI doesn't need to be involved in everything, but it has made trying ideas like this a lot easier.
Whichever tools you choose, you can find new ways to talk about your business or something you care about.
The videos aren't perfect, and I don't need them to be. I'm trying to get a simple message across and have some fun doing it.
The fun factor goes up because I'm spending less time getting lost in the nuts and bolts of video creation. That's a job for my @bot !
For anyone new to Pask, think of a notary for robot records. The idea is to give people a signed record they can check, rather than asking them to take your word for it.
Tell me if you catch the Mad Max reference. Enjoy! π€π₯
Pask retweeted
Pask is the notary for robots: it proves what a machine did, to people who have no reason to believe you π€
@PaskWitness is a witness for robots at work. Every time a robot does a job on a site, Pask seals a record of what happened that anyone can check later without trusting the robot maker, the site, or Pask.
Pask retweeted
@PaskWitness is a witness for robots at work. Every time a robot does a job on a site, Pask seals a record of what happened that anyone can check later without trusting the robot maker, the site, or Pask.
Pask retweeted
Our creative technologist keeps shipping... Here he's given spatial awareness to a pair of InMo glasses, but also to his new spatial video editor.
Pask retweeted
Before a robot starts work at your property, what would you want your insurance broker to see?
On September 21, Koop published findings from five years of insurance quotes, policies, claim files and applications involving 392 U.S. robotics companies.
There is encouraging news in its figures. Premium per dollar of revenue in 2025 was 69% lower than in 2022. That's a finding from Koop's own program, not a promise about what any particular robot will cost to insure.
Another finding deserves attention: 87% of applicants reported a safe-stop system, and 65% reported a safety framework or third-party evaluation.
Those controls matter. We'd also want to understand how they apply to the work being done at a particular property.
Suppose a cleaning robot is approved to work in an empty lobby overnight. One evening, an event runs late and people are still there. Someone decides whether the job can go ahead under those conditions.
If there is a claim afterward, we'd want to be able to establish who authorized the work and what conditions that approval covered. We'd also want a record of what was observed during the job, kept at the time and available for someone outside the robot company to check.
That record wouldn't establish that the work was safe. The safety assessment and the insurance policy would still need their own review.
We want people to be able to count on more than a description of the robot when they have to explain a particular shift. Agreeing what evidence to keep belongs in the conversation before work starts.
If you insure or operate robots, please feel welcome to share what evidence you ask for beyond the equipment's stated safety features.
Koop, IN BOTS WE TRUST 2026, public report summary:
koop.ai/reports/in-bots-we-tβ¦
Koop's September 21, 2026 announcement, distributed by EIN Presswire:
indystar.com/press-release/sβ¦
Wilder Robotics works on the accountability layer for physical machines. What record exists after a machine does something in the real world, and whether anyone outside the vendor can trust it.
Pask retweeted
Twenty years in property work taught me that the hardest question after something goes wrong is the simplest one. What happened, and who says so. This is where we are on that, including what we got wrong and corrected along the way.
xitter.cf/WilderRobotics/status/β¦
We are building Pask, a way to create a common digital receipt for work performed at a real place.
Whether a robot inspects a building or a person completes maintenance, the receipt records who was involved, where and when it happened, what rules applied, and what evidence supports it. The goal is to give property owners and insurers a record they can check without relying only on the service provider's explanation.
A record that has not been altered is not automatically a record that is true. Pask is meant to strengthen accountability. It does not promise that a job was done correctly.
The proposal behind Pask now has four published versions, starting with -00. The latest, -03, is dated September 10, 2026. What has changed since the original filing with the Internet Engineering Task Force:
-00 defined the receipt. It connected the place, the person or machine, the activity, the time, and the evidence into one signed record.
-01 made the checking rules more precise. We also corrected an overstatement of our own: valid receipts do not prove that someone has shown you the complete history.
-02 added relationship disclosures. The receipt records whether its creator claims to be independent of the site owner, affiliated with the owner, or has not disclosed the relationship. It records that claim. It does not independently confirm it.
-03 made the checking requirements clearer. The receipt now states whether secure hardware signed it directly or authorized another signer. When information needed for a check cannot be obtained, it must be reported as undetermined rather than assumed. A valid digital signature alone does not prove that trusted hardware was involved.
-04 is the work underway. We are working on stronger checks of signatures and timestamps, and a way to correct or challenge an earlier statement while preserving the original. These are development goals, not finished capabilities.
From Rob, our founder:
This started with a couple of decades of experience and an idea of what I believe we will need as more robots go to work. I am learning every day, and I want people to point out what we have missed so we can make it better.
These are versions of one proposal, not separate products. The proposal is an individual Internet-Draft, not an adopted IETF standard or an IETF endorsement.
If you own property, insure it, or service it, what would you need to see in a record like this before you relied on it?
Learn about Pask: pask-witness.com/
Read the IETF draft: datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draβ¦
Try the browser demo. It uses sample data, with checks running offline in your browser rather than against a live system: pask-witness.com/verify
Pask retweeted
Two witnesses to one. The part nobody argued about is the part that made it worth anything.
Pask retweeted
Yesterday I wrote that a private site has one witness, and that it is always the company that owns the machine.
Here is what happens when that company also owns the building.
In July, Travis Kalanick's company Atoms raised $1.7B led by a16z. His own description of what he is building, the day it closed: atoms-based computers, where CPU is manufacturing, storage is real estate, and network is transportation.
Read the real estate line again. In the food division the same company owns the kitchens, owns the machines working in them, and owns the output.
The strategy is probably right, and their own manifesto argues it well: if you need a thousand pancakes an hour, a humanoid is the worst possible way to get them.
Here is what that structure quietly removes.
Every method we have for establishing what a machine did assumes at least two parties. One built it, someone else runs the site, someone else carries the loss. When two of them disagree there are two accounts to hold against each other, and that comparison is the check. You can ask a vendor for its logs precisely because the vendor is not also the landlord.
Consolidate all three into one company and there is one account, produced and stored and read by the only party with an interest in what it says. Nothing has been concealed. There is simply no second version to test it against.
That is not an argument against vertical integration. It is a description of what it costs, and the cost stays invisible until the day somebody asks.
When the machine, the building and the record all belong to the same company, who is the second witness?
If there is a room where operators are working this out, we would like to be in it. Tell me where.
Wilder Robotics works on the accountability layer for physical machines. What record exists after a machine does something in the real world, and whether anyone outside the vendor can trust it.