I don't really understand this article. It seems to centre around the quote "probably the first instance of a robot ever captured in a moving image" when it is quite clearly an actor not a machine.
Nowhere does the article refer to something like "depiction of a robot", no it explicitly talks about robots captured on film. This is not that.
It's definitely a cool glimpse into early filmmaking, but it's not a robot.
No, it's a mannequin that comes to life. Trying to retcon it into being a killer robot is like the pyramidiots who find images of spaceships in Egyptian temple wall paintings.
Nowhere does the article refer to something like "depiction of a robot", no it explicitly talks about robots captured on film. This is not that.
It's definitely a cool glimpse into early filmmaking, but it's not a robot.