New Delhi, 19 Feb : A controversy has arisen after Galgotias University showcased a robotic dog at the recent AI Impact Summit in the national capital. The situation escalated when a video of the demonstration went viral, leading to claims that the Greater Noida-based institution presented an imported Chinese robot as its own technological innovation.
In the widely shared video, university representatives introduced the “robotic dog” to visitors, emphasizing its ability to move around the campus on its own. They explained that the robot can perform surveillance and capture images in tight and hard-to-reach areas. The presentation portrayed the device as a sign of the university’s significant investment and progress in artificial intelligence.
However, after the video was released, several media outlets focused on international and China-related news questioned the university’s claim of spending over ₹350 crore on AI development. Social media users also weighed in, with some criticizing the institution for supposedly promoting imported technology as innovation. Others expressed concerns about academic transparency and integrity. Reports also indicated that the robot, made by the Chinese company Unitree and priced between ₹2–3 lakh, was rebranded as “Orion.”
As the controversy grew, Galgotias University issued an official statement to clarify its stance. The university explained that the robotic dog was purchased exclusively for educational and research purposes. “The recently acquired robodog from Unitree is part of our learning journey. It is not just a display machine but a hands-on classroom tool. Our students are actively experimenting with it, testing its abilities and broadening their knowledge,” the statement noted. The institution also made it clear that it never claimed to have built the robot.
According to the university, its goal is to study and understand advanced technologies through hands-on experience, aiming to enable students to design, engineer, and manufacture similar innovations in India in the future. Nonetheless, public debate continues over whether the summit presentation may have given a misleading impression.
