At the AI Summit at Galgotias, Chinese robo-dog accused of imitating humans, clarified

At the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, a showcase of a sophisticated robotic dog by Galgotias University has sparked a significant controversy, drawing accusations of misrepresentation and passing off foreign technology as indigenous innovation. The university has since issued a formal clarification, asserting that it never claimed to have built the device and that it is purely an educational tool. The Spark: A viral video and accusations of "theft." The controversy erupted after a video from the summit circulated widely on social media. In the clip, university representatives are seen demonstrating a four-legged, or quadruped, robot, which they referred to as "Orion". The presenters explained that the robot, used for surveillance and monitoring, "walks around their campus all the time" and can capture images from "difficult to get into" locations. The demonstration quickly drew a large crowd and was initially hailed by many online as a sign of India's growing prowess in artificial intelligence and robotics. However, the narrative took a sharp turn when tech enthusiasts and observers identified the machine as the Possible spelling mistake found. Go2 is a commercially available product manufactured by the Chinese robotics firm Unitree Robotics. This robot is readily available on global online marketplaces for approximately $2,800 (roughly ₹2.3 lakh).

 This revelation led to a severe backlash, with social media users and some news outlets accusing the university of "stealing" Chinese technology and presenting it as its own creation. Critics were particularly sharp, with one user commenting, "Galois really said 'Make in India' but meant 'Make believe in India'," while another called the episode a "global clown show". The criticism was further fueled by the university's prominent display of a ₹350+ crore investment in an AI ecosystem, which many felt was at odds with the showcasing of an off-the-shelf foreign product.

The Clarification: "A Classroom in Motion" Facing intense online criticism, Galgotias University released an official statement on the social media platform X to clarify its position. The university's response can be summarised in three key points: Denial of Ownership Claims: The university was unequivocal in stating, "Let us be clear: Galgotias has not built this Robocop, nor have we claimed." This directly refuted the core allegation that they were trying to pass off the Chinese robot as their own invention. The institution explained that the robot was. It described the device as "a classroom in motion," emphasising that students are actively "experimenting with it, testing its limits, and, in the process, expanding their own knowledge". The university framed the acquisition within its broader educational mission. It stated that its goal is to keep students "ahead of the curve in technology" by bringing cutting-edge innovations from global hubs like the US, China, and Singapore to its campus. "Why?" The statement read: "Because exposure creates vision. 

And vision creates creators.  ' A Wider Debate on Innovation and Optics. The incident has ignited a broader conversation about transparency and the nature of innovation in India's tech showcase events. While the university has clarified its intentions, the episode highlights several key issues: The Power of Presentation: Although the university never explicitly claimed to have built the robot, the use of a local name ("Orion") and the context of a major AI summit with a massive investment backdrop created a powerful impression of ownership.

 This underscores the fine line between demonstrating technology and implies its indigenous development. Global Sourcing vs. Indigenous Creation: In a globalised world, sourcing technology for research and education is a common practice. The controversy reveals the public's heightened sensitivity, especially in the context of India's push for self-reliance and its technological rivalry with China. The distinction between "integrating" global tech and "innovating" from the ground up is crucial for public understanding and institutional credibility. The ₹350 Crore Question: The large investment figure cited by the university remained a point of contention, with critics questioning how a relatively inexpensive, imported robot factored into such a massive AI investment. While the robot is just one small part of a larger ecosystem, the optics of the situation led to scepticism about how funds are being utilised and portrayed.  A Lesson in Clarity.

 Ultimately, the Galgotias University incident serves as a case study in the importance of clear communication in an era of viral content and heightened scrutiny. While the university's clarification seems to have addressed the core accusation of intellectual property theft, the episode has undeniably sparked a necessary debate about authenticity, transparency, and the narratives we build around technology and innovation in India. Are such demonstrations helpful for student exposure, or do they risk blurring the lines of genuine innovation? Share your thoughts.