At the AI for Global Good summit in Delhi, delegates faced one of the biggest hot-button issues head on. A university professor boldly proclaimed that her institution created a featured robot. In particular, the Go2 robot produced by Chinese company Unitree Robotics sparked heated debate. Attendees’ eyes went wide when they found out the true source. This incident sparked a significant conversation about ownership and representation in the field of artificial intelligence.
With a retail price of around 200,000 rupees, the Go2 model slips under the radar at around $2,200, or £1,600. One stand in particular made waves among delegates at the summit, attracting a line of delegates from more than 100 countries to hear an eyebrow-raising pitch. Neha Singh, an assistant professor at the university, turned heads on campus with her provocative claim. The AI summit is widely known for its high-level, fascinating discussions about governance, infrastructure and innovation for AI. It has included inspirational presentations from notable industry leaders, including Google’s own Sundar Pichai.
At first, Professor Singh claimed that her university was behind the development of the Go2 robot. As we reported, her comments later on were backtracked to say that they had been misinterpreted. After the story went live, the university quickly backtracked on any assertion that they were responsible for the development of the robot.
“It might be that I could not convey well what I wanted to say, or you could not understand well what I wanted to say,” Singh stated in response to the ensuing confusion.
The incident has been described as an embarrassment for the summit’s organizers. It’s indicative of a much larger culture problem in the AI community. The desire to avoid attribution and share credit in the rapid advancement of technology. Recently, industry stakeholders have raised the alarm about the need for integrity in our representational practices.
We don’t ever want behavior like this to become the norm. There are other players, other countries and other participants at play too,” said a panelist who wished to remain anonymous at a media briefing.
S Krishnan, another influential voice in the room at the summit, agreed with this assessment. He stated, “What happened should not affect the way people present or exhibit their work at such events. The idea is not to use an opportunity like this to become something else or create unnecessary noise.”
Debates on this scandal are still raging on. He concluded that there’s no substitute for clarity and transparency when working in highly collaborative spaces like artificial intelligence. The Go2 model remains a jewel atop the summit, illuminating the complex yet brilliant links between innovation and attribution. Secondly, it highlights the importance of these relationships in mediating global politics.