A private Indian university had to leave its booth at a government-backed AI summit after it showed a Chinese-made robotic dog as if it were its own invention.
Robot display triggers controversy at national AI event
Reuters said the incident happened at the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, which was meant to highlight Indian artificial intelligence innovation. A professor from Galgotias University showed a robotic dog and claimed it was made by the university.
But later, the robot was identified as the Unitree Go2, a robotic dog made by the Chinese company Unitree Robotics.
Following the discovery, India’s technology ministry instructed the university to vacate its stall at the event. The officials said the display was misleading and did not align with the summit’s goal of highlighting indigenous AI development.
Organizers confront the university over the robot’s origin
NBC News said that the organizers asked about the robot’s origin after people noticed it was a Chinese product. The university’s representatives were then told to leave the event.
Euronews similarly reported that the robot had not been developed by the university and that authorities took action after determining that its origin had been misrepresented.
Summit aimed at promoting the Indian AI ecosystem
The India AI Impact Summit was meant to promote the country’s artificial intelligence skills, including those from research groups, startups, and tech projects.
Officials emphasized that participants were expected to accurately represent their innovations. According to Reuters, the university’s removal was intended to preserve the event’s credibility.
Broader sensitivity over foreign technology claims
This incident happened while India is focusing on developing its own technology and relying less on foreign systems. It also highlighted how much value is placed on showing locally made AI tools at government events.
No immediate response from the university
Galgotias University did not reply right away to requests for comment about the incident.
This incident highlighted problems with credit and transparency at major technology events, especially those meant to show off national innovation.
