NEW DELHI: It was supposed to be its date with fame on a global stage, but turned out to be a moment of embarrassment for the Greater Noida-based Galgotias University, which also left organisers of the India AI Impact Summit red-faced.The private institution was asked to pack its bags and leave the summit’s expo zone at Bharat Mandapam after a robotic dog it tom-tommed as an in-house innovation turned out to be a made-in-China project available online.MeitY secretary S Krishnan said the organisers took a firm view as they did not want any controversy around exhibits showcased at the Impact Expo. “We want genuine exhibits. We don’t want a controversy over exhibits in the expo or to encourage plagiarism. The issue is about misleading and the claim to have made something which they have not,” Krishnan said.
Galgotias sorry for ‘confusion’, blames it on ‘ill-informed’ rep
The action taken, Krishnan added, is also to ensure that “such exhibits don’t overshadow other genuine and excellent works showcased in the exhibition”.Govt sources said the robotic dog, presented by the university as “Orion”, was identified as the Unitree Go2 — a commercially available quadruped robot made by Chinese robotics firm Unitree, priced in India around Rs 2-3 lakh. As scrutiny intensified, the university was asked to vacate its stall at the expo.The controversy was triggered after a faculty member, Neha Singh of the university, told DD News, “We are the first private university investing more than Rs 350 crore in artificial intelligence… So, Orion has been developed by the Centers of Excellence and as you can see, it can take all shapes and sizes.” She added that the robot was “quite naughty” and could perform surveillance and monitoring tasks.As criticism mounted online, Galgotias issued a series of statements that appeared to walk back the claims. In its first clarification, the university said it had not built the robodog and stressed student learning through exposure to global technologies. In a later post, it alleged a “propaganda campaign” against the institution.Singh later said the row stemmed from unclear communication, adding, “We cannot claim that we manufactured it.”In its final statement, the university apologised “profusely for the confusion”, blamed an “ill-informed” representative for giving “factually incorrect information”, denied any institutional intent to misrepresent the innovation and said it had vacated the premises in line with the organisers’ sentiments.The episode drew sharp reactions on social media, with some of the netizens questioning credibility of participants and quality of vetting at a summit meant to spotlight Indian innovation.
