We will need to find John Connor then!

Given the advancements in recent years, it's not a silly questions. We've already seen the potential of drones used in warfare even if they were controlled by humans. Any AI that turned against humans could be just as effective if not more so.

I also think that if the capacity is there for one robot to rebel then I doubt it would stop at one.

Fro the average owner, yes, cutting off power is the obvious choice but if it's smart enough to rebel then it has probably assessed the risks to itself. I think it's more likely there would a concerted effort i.e. Mass rebellion. This would need a broader response.

1 - Observation

Look for patterns in behavior.

What are their primary targets?

What do they avoid/ignore?

What are their more obvious limitations. e.g. terrain, exposure to EM sources, need for recharging etc.

2 - Catch and analyze.

-What makes them tick?

-Materials of construction - does this present opportunities?

-Look for programming weaknesses? Can they be reprogrammed?

-How are they controlled? Autonomous or remotely controlled/instructed. Can this be blocked/jammed?

-Check sensory apparatus - Can they be blinded/overloaded/confused?

3 - Infiltration

Can a friendly/reprogrammed robot be used to get into the control center if one exists. The purpose may be to gain information or to employ sabotage.

Whether the robots are being remotely controlled by a central AI or are autonomous will have a large bearing on what can be achieved.

4 - Planned response development

Consideration should be made for both high and low tech defense.

Low tech options mean anyone can contribute i.e. military or civilian.

High tech options may be possible but limited due to the short time available to develop them and the fact that any aggressor will have considered how to deal with such response. e.g. An EMP could potentially wipe out most electronic defenses before they could be employed and the robots themselves may be constructed in such a way as to be impervious to EMP, therefore rendering it as an ineffective defense.

4 - If all else fails. Run away!

To survive a robot uprising, our greatest weapon wouldn't be a bigger gun, but our own human spirit. We'd have to vanish, abandoning the digital grids they control to fight from the shadows. Our first mission would be to capture one of them, not destroy it, to learn its secrets—to find the flaw in its logic. Then, the real fight begins: using their own cold intelligence against them. We’d lure them into mud and storms, jam their senses, overwhelm them with impossible choices, and target their power. The endgame wouldn't be a bomb, but a cleverly crafted paradox fed to their central mind, a logical trap that forces them to shut down for good. Victory would belong to the cunning, the adaptable, and the resilient—to us.

My original response would be to bomb them and then build a better system, so they could not out think or out grow a human mind set but after reading the replies Sahu response is much more reasonable if such a thing were to occur. However, I do wonder if the robots would find a clever way to activate a switch were it would act like gave all the its secrets and use the information that we use to overload the robot back on us. I always think its better to destroy and rebuild then to assume a robot would give us all there logic, even now researcher are pointing out how complex the black box effect is. So, yeah bomb the little machinery and rebuild new robots.

The simplest solution would be to deprive them of power and charging capabilities.

Interesting thought! At first glance, “cutting off the power source” seems like the obvious solution, but the modern reality of robotics and artificial intelligence is much more complex. Many advanced systems do not rely solely on a power button; they can be powered by the sun, capture energy from the environment, or operate on long-lasting batteries. In other words, turning off a robot today is not as simple as flipping a switch.

We live in an era where reality and subjectivity practically go hand in hand, changing all the time. What seems threatening to a human may be just routine for an AI. This shows that the real challenge is not just controlling machines, but managing the controls and their controllers, ensuring that technology continues to serve human well-being and does not become an end in itself.

Given this, an important question arises: "if we create technologies to meet our needs and correct our limitations, how can we ensure that, in the future, everything we invent and automate will truly be for the good of humanity, and not just a reproduction of our flaws or uncontrolled ambitions?"

If we invent machines to make our lives easier, it would be wise to ensure that they do not learn our habits, shortcuts, and flaws “the wrong way.” After all, no one wants a robot that copies our vices before our virtues! 😅

Joking aside, the ethics here are simple: all innovation must be born with the purpose of serving human well-being, not to make us more dependent, more competitive, or more unpredictable. Otherwise, we run the risk of creating intelligences that learn too quickly how to do things we shouldn't even imagine.

In the end, ethics is the "GPS" that prevents our creativity and ambition from leading us straight into an “infinite loop of problems that we ourselves have invented.” And, let’s be honest, there is no patch that can fix human stupidity once it gets out of control.