A common science-fiction trope is the "robot rebellion"...but I have a hard time comphrending how one could actually occur.
Computers follow pre-designed instructions. Without these instructions, computers can do nothing. Even if you want to have a computer reprogram itself, you must provide it with instructions on how to reprogram itself. Computers are unable to 'originate' their own instructions...there's always something that causes the computer to perform a certain action, whether it is a human programmer, a dataset/corpus, or some other external force.
If computers follow pre-designed instructions, then it seems reasonable to me to assume that computer programs are unable to "rebel". It is possible, for instance, for programmers to write complicated and complex code that winds up causing a robot to behave in ways that are counterproductive for humans (i.e, the cliche "Kill All Humans" scenario). But the problem lies with the instructions. The robot was loyal, loyal entirely to its instructions. So the robot couldn't be rebelling at all, and if anyone is to be blamed for the robot's action, it would have to be the programmers who wrote the code.
I, however, do not think that science-fiction tropes should be dismissed just because of a little philosophical speculation. There does appear to be a fear of a "robot rebellion" that I might be missing...something more than the standard "humans might do something stupid when using new technologies without fully understanding their implications" moral. I just don't know what I'm missing though...
One possibility is that the people who believe that robots can rebel against their masters also believe in compatibilism, and thus believe that the robot freely chose to kill their masters...even though their choice to kill their masters was due to a deterministic process that was caused by their masters' programmed instructions. Such a idea could make logical sense, but seems like a rather incoherent idea of how a "rebellion" might work.