> Do you think humanoid robot companies have intent to perform assault since their robots occasionally harm people?

Mostly, no.

Zuckerberg definitely not, he discusses "superintelligence" in a way that makes it clear he only regards this as a buzzword and has no idea what the implications are.

Anthropic also definitely not, they put their money where their mouth was and got illegally blacklisted for refusing to allow its models to be used for (amongst other things) automated weapons.

Musk, I think probably yes. Seems to regard all AI safety as "woke" or "censorship", is in bed with the US administration that illegally blacklisted Anthropic. If I had to put money on who first releases to the public a Mr Stabby, I'd put it on Musk, with an Optimus.

The rest, I'm less sure about.

> What about car companies?

Depends on the harm, but I'd say probably yes. Infamously, leaded petrol, resisting seatbelts back in the day, even promoting cars over public transport would be part of this if you consider both local and global pollution.

> Going from a design that facilitates potential harm to intent is insane.

Well, it's the difference between negligence and malice.