Pathak argues that China is pursuing the technology and the West needs to keep up.
He envisions hundreds of thousands of AI-driven humanoid robots forming a ground force, matching the growing use of autonomous drones in the skies. A fleet of humanoid robot soldiers could be a major deterrent to conflict, he says.
Foundation has $24m (£18m) in research contracts to pilot its technology with the US military as well as two units currently being tested by the Ukrainian military.
The US military pilot is limited to handling rather than firing weapons, Pathak says, though weaponisation is part of the testing in Ukraine.
The company attracted attention earlier this year after Eric Trump, the US Presidents’ son, became an investor and advisor, external.
Foundation is also an opportunity for Pathak to prove himself – Synapse, the financial services firm he co-founded and led, filed for bankruptcy in 2024, external.
But are humanoid soldier robots what the military needs, how hard are they to build and what ethical issues do they raise?
The military is clearly interested, says Dean Fankhauser at Robozaps, a humanoid robotics advisory firm that runs a marketplace for commercial systems. He points to a current US Army contest, external for humanoids that could eventually support soldiers across a wide range of tasks.
It is “completely inevitable” says Fankhauser that a company would see a business opportunity in weaponising the technology.
There are plenty of simpler robots – namely drones and even some ground robot systems – used to carry explosives, missiles and other payloads, with battlefield use especially visible in Ukraine.
Some firms, external have also been working to weaponise dog-like quadruped robots, though we haven’t seen them too much in active warfare yet notes Fankhauser.
But other legged robot companies have drawn a line opposing weaponisation, external, citing risks of harm and ethical issues.
Pathak disagrees with that, arguing it is dangerous that more firms aren’t following Foundation’s lead.
Humanoid robot soldiers make sense, he argues, because the world is built for humans. From screwdrivers to weapons, there is no need to reinvent existing tools.
Humans should be “in the loop”, approving any use of lethal force before the system can act, Pathak says, though he makes exceptions where firing autonomously might be necessary to avoid a catastrophic outcome and sees scenarios where human authorisation is less critical.
Perhaps the biggest challenge, and one faced by all companies building humanoid robots, is developing artificial intelligence that can operate in the real world and cope with unpredictable and complicated situations.
Phantom is directed by an AI system called Cortex, and a new version is also in development.
The idea is that Phantom is given a goal – such as moving supplies or mapping the inside of a building – based on a task it has been trained specifically to carry out through demonstrations using videos, images and text.
It then navigates its environment using cameras in its helmet that provide 360-degree vision, allowing its AI system to assess the surroundings and adapt its movements.
In Cortex, says Patak, two types of AI models work together.
A “reasoning model” trained on task-specific examples interprets the goal and formulates Phantom’s action plan.
A broader “world model”, trained on internet videos as well as data gathered from the robot interacting with the physical world – including its “free play” with blocks – predicts how the environment will respond, helping Phantom move safely and execute actions.
