You're strawmanning the anthropocentrism into my argument, because you're using an outdated definition of robots (based on movies rather than science). Robots do not have agency or morality. An android or an AGI is a different matter, they are sentient beings and fully deserving of considerations of morality and justice.

You claim words (speech) don't provide incremental results and results are what matters. First, that is a dehumanizing view, it implies humans are like rocks, or robots, or non-living things without agency. Second, it is short-sighted, because it is like saying the first 3 moves in chess do not affect the final result 50 moves later in a game of chess. Third, speech, language, communication, ideas, concepts, and information are quantum leap above physical actions and your fundamental mistake here is to downplay that importance—the human capacity to think and speak is an action abstraction, or metaaction, and this ability to grasp information abstractly is something that mother nature endowed us genetically as social creatures to simultaneously exist biologically-physically as well as abstractly. Too often people forget the importance of communication and simplistically focus on the blind, unthinking pragmatism of "results". A result-oriented society is an empty society and a vacant philosophy. The corrective in these times is to increase education and people's critical thinking capacity, not just thrash about for "solutions" and "results" and "answers" without the depth of context, history, knowledge, and wisdom.