I think you've missed the point.

Anything automated that could be a threat needs to have safeguards. Needing constant wifi to prevent death or injury is not an acceptable safeguard.

Consider consumer/professional drones. If they lose connection they have on board protocols to mitigate hazards. Even then they are still governed by laws to isolate then from people because even those safeguards aren't good enough. Suggesting that a robot could completely rely on wifi is preposterous.

I think the point is that that sort of safety critical stuff should be on board, not relying on a wireless connection.

As someone using various wireless standards over over twenty years and in IT dealing with wifi instability on basically a daily basis. No.

Wifi is a series of compromises to be convenient. It's "good enough" for most of those but generally and increasingly in newer standards, the compromise is to drop stability for things speed. You'll see this to be the case in a lot of professional wifi gear that will transfer you to a lower standard if it sees weaker signals to improve stability.

To make that concrete, a problem with wifi in an office is an embarrassing "I'll call back on my phone" but a factory floor that could be millions of dollars of downtime to restart an entire chain of machines. Hardened industrial wiring and connections is well established and wifi is just not at that level. The poorly formed example of the robot was trying to convey their intention to start addressing that level of hardening.

All that said, based on my experience reading ieee articles this is all exaggerated. in reality we're probably just getting more stable video calls at higher bandwidths. Still a win for the help desk techs everywhere and people with a heavy wall making Netflix flaky.